The sedition vs violent protest debate came into focus as the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that participating in a violent protest, raising slogans against the government, or expressing political dissent does not automatically amount to sedition. A Division Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur clarified that violent acts during a protest may attract charges such as rioting or vandalism. However, authorities must separately prove an intention to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the State before invoking sedition laws.
High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dera Violence Case
The High Court dismissed the State of Haryana’s appeal against a September 23, 2019 judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kaithal. The trial court had acquitted four Dera Sacha Sauda followers—Dharam Pal, Jasbir, Shiv Kumar alias Babar, and another accused.
The prosecution accused them of rioting, arson, and vandalism after the conviction of Dera chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. However, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision.
Prosecution’s Allegations
According to FIR No. 199 dated August 25, 2017, Sub-Divisional Officer Sandeep Bharat of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVN) filed the complaint.
The prosecution alleged that a mob armed with lathis, dandas, gandasis, and petrol bottles entered the UHBVN office in Kalayat, Kaithal. The group allegedly forced employees to flee, damaged government property, set the office on fire, and raised slogans supporting the Dera chief.
Court Finds Lack of Evidence
The accused faced charges under Sections 124-A (sedition), 188, 427, 436, 450, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
After reviewing the evidence, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s direct involvement in the violence. It also found no credible evidence proving a criminal conspiracy to undermine the government.
The Court observed that sedition vs violent protest requires a clear legal distinction. Violent conduct may constitute offences such as rioting or destruction of public property, but it does not automatically establish the ingredients of sedition. Since the prosecution failed to prove those essential elements, the High Court upheld the acquittal of all four accused.
