Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal emphasized that speech must be judged by the standards of reasonable and courageous individuals.
BY PC Bureau
July 11, 2025: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that merely expressing support for Pakistan on social media—without reference to any specific incident or mention of India—does not, at first glance, constitute a penal offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal delivered the order while hearing a bail plea filed by 18-year-old Riyaz, who was arrested after posting an Instagram story that read, “Chahe jo ho jai sport to bas…Pakistan ka karenge” (“Whatever happens, we will support only… Pakistan”).
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, emphasizing that when assessing social media posts for criminal liability, authorities must apply the standard of a reasonable, strong-minded, and courageous person—not that of one with a weak or vacillating mind.
READ: The Mega Tribal Land Grab (2): How Adivasi Fight a Losing battle in Chhattisgarh
Highlighting the importance of free speech, the Court held that words or content shared online fall within the ambit of freedom of expression and must not be narrowly interpreted unless they clearly pose a threat to national sovereignty or promote separatism.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that merely expressing support for Pakistan without referencing any specific incident or mentioning India by name does not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Section 152 BNS deals… pic.twitter.com/ClUwi0UkVk
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) July 11, 2025
The applicant’s counsel argued that the post did not harm the dignity or sovereignty of India and that supporting another country—even a hostile one—does not fulfill the criteria under Section 152 BNS. The Court concurred, stating:
“For Section 152 BNS to apply, the intent must be to promote secession, armed rebellion, or activities that undermine the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. Mere support for a foreign nation, even if distasteful to some, does not meet this threshold.”
However, the Court noted that such a post might still fall under Section 196 BNS, which penalizes acts that may incite disharmony among Indian citizens and carries a punishment of up to seven years in prison.
READ: Myanmar Horror: Junta Bombs Monastery Shelter, Killing 28 in Sagaing
The prosecution argued that Riyaz’s social media post had the potential to incite separatist sentiment and opposed bail. However, the Court, taking note of Riyaz’s young age and the fact that the police had already filed the charge sheet, granted him bail.
The Court ordered Riyaz’s release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, cautioning him strictly:
“The applicant shall not attempt to influence witnesses and must participate in the trial without seeking unnecessary adjournments. He must not post any content on social media likely to cause disharmony among citizens. Any violation of these conditions will lead to cancellation of bail.”
The case underscores the judiciary’s careful balancing act between national security concerns and the fundamental right to freedom of expression in the digital age.
