RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition filed by 11 individuals seeking to quash criminal proceedings and hate speech charges framed against them for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the Hindu religion and public figures during a public rally in Jashpur district.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ruled that the constitutional protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions, and whether the alleged statements crossed the line into punishable offences can only be determined through a full-fledged trial.
The case stems from an FIR registered on February 28, 2024, at the Kunkuri Police Station following a written complaint by a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
According to the prosecution, the petitioners, including Sunil Kumar Xalxo, Sanjay Saxena, and Meera Tirkey, participated in a public meeting organised by the Bharat Mukti Morcha and Rashtriya Christian Morcha at the Saliyatoli Mini Stadium on February 27, 2024.
It was alleged that during the massive gathering, speakers made highly provocative statements, describing the term 'Hindu' as an abuse and equating it with "thieves, dacoits, robbers, and slaves."
The state counsel further placed evidence showing that the speakers made derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh and prominent religious preacher Dhirendra Shastri, while also exhorting the crowd to break Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to halt the electoral process.
Following an investigation that included video recordings of the event, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kunkuri, framed charges against the accused on September 19, 2025, under various sections of the IPC, including promoting enmity between groups (153A, 153B), outraging religious feelings (295A), and public mischief (505(2)).
An Additional Sessions Court subsequently upheld the framing of charges in January 2026.
Representing the petitioners, lawyer Anchal Kumar Matre argued that the accused are social activists and rationalists working to raise awareness among socially and economically backward sections. He contended that their statements were protected under the right to dissent and scientific temper as enshrined in the Constitution.
Opposing the plea, Government advocate Priyank Rathi argued that the electronic and documentary evidence collected, including video clips verified under the Evidence Act, established a clear prima facie case.
Reaffirming established Supreme Court precedents, the High Court emphasised that its inherent power to quash an FIR or charge-sheet must be used sparingly and only in "rarest of rare cases."
"Whether the statements were capable of promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups or amounted to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings are issues which require examination upon a full-fledged trial," the bench observed.
Dismissing the petition, the High Court directed the trial court to proceed independently with the case strictly in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
