Jharkhand High Court Quashes Sedition FIR Against BJP Leader
Court rules criticism of government actions does not constitute sedition without intent to incite violence or public disorder.
In a significant legal development, the Jharkhand High Court on September 19, 2025, quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against Deepak Prakash, the President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Jharkhand, who was charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including sedition. The court, presided over by Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, concluded that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and deemed the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the legal process.
The case, registered as Dumka (Town) P.S. Case No.298 of 2020, originated from a statement made by Prakash at a press conference, where he declared his intention to form a BJP government in Jharkhand within two months. The FIR accused him of sedition, criminal intimidation, and intentional insult, alleging his remarks amounted to a conspiracy to overthrow a democratically elected government, thus threatening the constitutional order.
The court reiterated established legal principles regarding sedition under Section 124A of the IPC, emphasizing that criticism of government measures is permissible under the freedom of speech unless it incites violence or public disorder. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, the judgment underscored that only expressions with a pernicious tendency to disrupt public order can be prosecuted under sedition laws.
Justice Choudhary further analyzed the charges under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, related to intentional insult and criminal intimidation, and found no substantial allegations to support these offences. The judgment noted that the political statement in question did not constitute an intentional insult or a threat meant to cause alarm or provoke a breach of peace.
The court also addressed arguments from the state, which contended that an FIR need not encapsulate the entire prosecution case, asserting instead that it must reveal a cognizable offence. The judgment, however, aligned with the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, affirming that an FIR failing to disclose a cognizable offence should be quashed.
In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court determined that the FIR against Deepak Prakash lacked the necessary elements to support charges of sedition, intentional insult, or criminal intimidation, thus directing the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings. This ruling represents a reaffirmation of the boundaries of sedition law in India, particularly emphasizing the protection of political speech under the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
Bottom Line:
Criticism of government actions or measures, even if strongly worded, does not constitute sedition under Section 124A IPC unless it has the intent or tendency to incite violence or disturb public order.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 124A, 504, 506, 120B; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482.
Deepak Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2787005
