National

Calling a Supreme Court Verdict a ‘Denial of Justice’ Is Protected Dissent, Not a Crime: Karnataka High Court

By The Legal Alpha Web Desk · 23 October 2026 · 5 min read
Calling a Supreme Court Verdict a ‘Denial of Justice’ Is Protected Dissent, Not a Crime: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report registered against thirteen individuals accused of putting up roadside posters in Mangaluru. The posters criticised the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya title dispute verdict, characterising the judgment as a "denial of justice" and exhorting the public to raise their voice for justice.

Following the display, the local police booked the individuals under penal provisions for promoting enmity between communities, deliberately outraging religious sentiments, criminal conspiracy, and defacing public property. The petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings before the High Court in 2021. In an order delivered by Justice H.P. Sandesh, the High Court held that expressing dissatisfaction with a judicial decision does not automatically attract criminal liability or amount to inciting communal disharmony.

Legal Topic

  • Area of Law: Criminal Law / Constitutional Law

  • Sub-topic: Freedom of Speech and Expression / Quashing of FIR under Inherent Powers / Offences Against Public Tranquillity

Core Legal Issue

The core question before the High Court was whether publicly criticising a judicial ruling by labeling it a "denial of justice" and calling for justice satisfies the statutory ingredients of promoting enmity between religious groups or deliberately hurting religious sentiments.

Specifically, the bench examined whether strong disapproval or dissent against a verdict delivered by the nation's highest court can be prosecuted as a criminal offense, or whether such expression remains sheltered under the constitutional right to free speech.

What Did the Court Decide?

Justice H.P. Sandesh allowed Criminal Petition No. 671 of 2021 and quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings against all thirteen petitioners.

The bench ruled that the allegations in the complaint failed to establish the basic legal ingredients of the offenses invoked. The Court clarified that disagreeing with a judicial verdict and articulating that grievance does not, in itself, constitute an effort to provoke religious hostility or public disorder. Consequently, permitting the criminal prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

Key Legal Points

  • Criticism of Judgments Is Not Communal Disharmony: Disagreeing with or expressing dissatisfaction over a court judgment cannot be treated as an attempt to foster enmity between religious communities or incite disharmony.

  • Strict Construction of Penal Provisions: To invoke offenses related to promoting enmity or insulting religious feelings, the offending material must demonstrate deliberate, malicious intent and a clear tendency to trigger disorder; merely terming a verdict unjust does not meet this threshold.

  • Primacy of Free Expression: Peaceful dissent against judicial pronouncements falls within the broad ambit of constitutional liberties guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21.

  • Invocation of Inherent Powers: Where the uncontroverted allegations in an FIR do not disclose the commission of the alleged cognizable offenses, High Courts must intervene under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent vexatious prosecution.

Relevant Law

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

    • Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.)

       

    • Section 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs)

       

    • Section 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy)

  • State Legislation: Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981

  • Constitution of India:

    • Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of speech and expression)

    • Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty)

  • Judicial Precedent: Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court held that the right to disagree and protest peacefully against decisions taken by state authorities forms an essential part of democratic life.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR failed to set out how the text on the posters satisfied the elements of Section 153A or Section 295A of the IPC. It was contended that stating that a judgment resulted in a denial of justice and asking people to speak up is an exercise of peaceful dissent protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Relying on authoritative Supreme Court precedents, the petitioners maintained that criminal law cannot be weaponised to stifle non-violent critique of public institutions.

The State

The High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition, arguing that the posters were placed along public roads in Mangaluru shortly after the Supreme Court passed its judgment. The State contended that the phrasing used carried the potential to inflame sentiments, incite mutual hostility between communities, and disturb public peace, thereby justifying police investigation and trial under penal law.

Why Does It Matter?

This ruling reinforces the constitutional distinction between public disagreement with judicial verdicts and criminal misconduct. In recent years, police authorities across multiple jurisdictions have frequently registered non-bailable FIRs under Section 153A and Section 295A against citizens expressing discontent with sensitive administrative and judicial outcomes.

By setting aside the proceedings, the Karnataka High Court draws a clear boundary: courts are public institutions whose decisions can be critiqued, even sharply, without such remarks automatically being rebranded as religious incitement or seditious disharmony. It provides a crucial defense shield for civil society members and citizens against arbitrary penal action for exercising core speech rights.

Legal Takeaway

Criticising a judicial decision or publicly describing it as unjust is a protected exercise of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Unless speech actively incites communal hostility or violence, dissenting against a court verdict cannot be treated as a criminal offense.

Sources

Primary Source:

Karnataka High Court judgment in Mohammed Hanif and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another (Criminal Petition No. 671 of 2021, decided by Justice H.P. Sandesh on October 15, 2026).

Additional Sources:

  • The Constitution of India (Articles 19 and 21).

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 120B, 153A, and 295A).

  • Supreme Court of India precedent in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra.

Related reporting