Allahabad High Court: In a bail application filed by the accused-applicant in case where he was allegedly involved in an unlawful assembly which raised objectionable slogans, a Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., held that the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda” was a challenge to the authority of law as well as sovereignty and integrity of India as the same incited the people for arm rebellion, therefore, this act would not only be punishable under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) but also against the basic tenets of Islam. Accordingly, the Court rejected the bail application.
Background
In May 2025, at the instigation of Ittefaq Minnat Council’s (‘INC’) President as well as one leader, a crowd of more than 500 people assembled and made slogans against the State as well as the recited disputed and objectionable slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda“. Upon being prevented by the police, they started pelting stones, firing, damaging police, and private vehicles. Resultantly, the applicant along with six other persons were arrested from the spot.
Based on the statements of these arrested persons and on the identification of other co-accused, an FIR was lodged against 25 named and 1700 unknown persons under Sections 109(1), 109(2), 118(2), 121(1), 189(5), 191(2), 191(3), 195(1), 196(1), 196(2), 223, 310(2), 324(5), 324(6), 61(2), 62 of the BNS, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Analysis and Decision
The Court examined Sections 196, 298, 299 and 302 of the BNS and stated that BNS has taken care of all such situations where any person disrespects any religion or its God, Prophet, Guru or attempts to promote enmity between the religious groups by chanting any slogan or visible representation, then appropriate punishment has also been provided. Therefore, chanting the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda” challenged the sovereignty and integrity of India as well as the Indian legal system, which is based on solemn constitutional objective rooted in democratic principles.
Further, the Court stated that the Constitution provides freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble under Article 19, subject to limitations under Article 19(2) and if a person challenges the law framed under the Constitution or promotes or incites people to commit an offence by providing punishment not prescribed in criminal law, the same must be dealt with strictly. Any slogan by a crowd providing a death sentence contrary to the punishment under the BNS or other criminal law is against the constitutional object, challenges the lawful authority of the Indian legal system, and is punishable under Section 152 of the BNS.
The blasphemy laws were enacted before 1947 and later expanded in Pakistan to provide life imprisonment or death for disrespect to the Quran or “Huzur Sallallahu alayhi wasallam.” The slogan was first used during unrest in Pakistan and thereafter spread to other countries including India, where it has been misused to intimidate people of other religions and challenge the authority of the State. Thus, its use in India challenges the authority of law and sovereignty of India and incites people for armed rebellion. There are several instances showing Prophet Mohammad’s kindness despite disrespect, demonstrating love, compassion, and repelling evil with good. Therefore, raising a slogan for beheading a person who disrespects the Nabi is disrespectful to the ideals of Prophet Mohammad and creates enmity through expression of violence.
The Court stated that the slogan raised by an individual person or by a crowd that “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda” was a challenge to the authority of law as well as sovereignty and integrity of India as the same incited the people for arm rebellion, therefore, this act would not only be punishable under Section 152 of the BNS but also against the basic tenets of Islam.
The Court stated that there was no ground for bail as there was sufficient material showing that the applicant was part of an unlawful assembly, arrested from the spot, and committed an offence against the State. Thus, the Court rejected the bail application.
[Rihan v. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43604 of 2025, decided on 17-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi
For the Opposite Party: G.A.