A steep price for offensive speech

The Karnataka High Court’s recent decision to quash a complaint against a shopkeeper in Athani is an important affirmation of personal liberty, setting a safeguard against private citizens acting as proxies for public figures and invoking criminal jurisdiction. The case arose after Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali placed barricades outside his shop. The complainant, a social worker, alleged that the shopkeeper made derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi when questioned. The Athani police registered charges of ‘obstruction of a public way and intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of peace’. A petty dispute over a barricade was thus bundled with an alleged speech offence, giving the matter a criminal dimension.Justice Venkatesh Naik of the Dharwad bench held that Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) requires an insult to be directed at the complainant with the knowledge that it is likely to provoke them to break the public peace. Here, the alleged remarks were directed at a third party. The unexplained four-day delay in filing the complaint further raised doubts about the motive. Surprisingly, the State defended the case without first establishing that basic legal ingredients were satisfied. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023), which clarified that mere abuse, discourtesy, or rudeness does not constitute intentional insult unless accompanied by the requisite intention or knowledge to provoke disorder. The danger in such cases is that the process itself becomes punishment. Once an FIR is registered, an individual faces investigation, questioning, legal costs, and prolonged uncertainty, even when the allegations do not amount to an offence. This burden is especially harsh when provisions meant to protect public order are misapplied.The Shaheen School case in Bidar offers another illustration. There too, the court found that the material did not satisfy the requirements of sedition or other offences invoked against the school management. Taken together, these rulings underline an important protection: criticism, offensive speech, or minor disputes cannot automatically be converted into criminal cases without the statutory elements of an offence. The Athani order does not endorse what was allegedly said, nor does it suggest that offensive speech should escape scrutiny. Rather, it reinforces a fundamental principle of criminal law: coercive action must rest on clear statutory grounds. The State’s power to investigate and prosecute is considerable; using it without meeting the law’s basic requirements risks turning a remedy meant to protect society into an instrument of harassment.

Source: Deccan Herald