JAVED AHMAD HAJAM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 07-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 317 : 2024 INSC 187
Javed Ahmad Hajam 
v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 886 of 2024)
07 March 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by 
the appellant for quashing the FIR filed against him for the offence 
punishable u/s.153-A, Penal Code, 1860.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – s.153-A – When not attracted – Appellant-
Professor was a member of a WhatsApp group that consisted 
of college teachers, students, and parents – He had put 
up a Whatsapp status protesting against the decision to 
abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of India; and a 
picture containing “Chand” and below that the words “14th 
August-Happy Independence Day Pakistan” were written – 
FIR registered against the appellant for offence punishable 
u/s.153-A – Allegation of commission of offence based on 
his WhatsApp status – High Court dismissed the writ petition 
filed by the appellant for quashing the FIR – Correctness:
Held: “Intention” as an essential ingredient of offence u/s.153-A– 
Alleged objectionable words or expressions used by the appellant 
cannot promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or 
ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional 
groups or castes or communities – WhatsApp status of the 
appellant had a photograph of two barbed wires below which it 
was mentioned “August 5- Black Day- Jammu & Kashmir” – This 
was an expression of his individual view and his reaction to the 
abrogation of Article 370 – It does not reflect any intention to do 
something prohibited u/s.153-A – At best, it was a protest, which 
is a part of his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by 
Article 19(1)(a) – Describing the day the abrogation happened 
as a “Black Day” was an expression of protest and anguish – 
318
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Further, the appellant had posted that “Article 370 was abrogated, 
we are not happy”– He intended to criticise the action of the 
abrogation of Article 370 – He had expressed unhappiness 
over the act of abrogation – The aforesaid words do not refer 
to any religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste 
or community – It was a simple protest against the decision to 
abrogate Article 370 – If every criticism or protest of the actions 
of the State is to be held as an offence u/s.153-A, democracy, 
an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive 
– The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an 
integral part of the rights guaranteed u/Article 19(1)(a) – Effect 
of the words used by the appellant on his WhatsApp status will 
have to be judged from the standards of reasonable women 
and men – The test to be applied is not the effect of the words 
on some individuals with weak minds or who see a danger in 
every hostile point of view – The test is of the general impact 
of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in 
numbers– Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred 
or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-sec.
(1) of s.153-A– Also, the picture containing “Chand” and below 
that the words “14th August-Happy Independence Day Pakistan”, 
will not attract clause (a) of sub-sec.(1) of s.153-A – Nothing 
wrong with a citizen of India extending good wishes to the 
citizens of Pakistan on 14th August, their Independence Day – 
It’s a gesture of goodwill – It cannot be said that such acts will 
tend to create disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will 
between different religious groups – Clause (b) of sub-sec.(1) of 
s.153-A not attracted – Impugned judgment and FIR, quashed. 
[Paras 10, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15]
Constitution of India – Articles 19, 21 – Right to dissent, 
a part of the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life 
guaranteed by Article 21 – Police to be sensitised about the 
democratic values enshrined in the Constitution:
Held: Right to dissent in a lawful manner must be treated as a 
part of the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life guaranteed 
by Article 21 – But the protest or dissent must be within four 
corners of the modes permissible in a democratic set-up – It is 
subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with 
clause (2) of Article 19 – In the present case, the appellant did 
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
319
Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
not at all cross the line – Now, the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.