The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against an advocate accused of making inflammatory, caste-laden remarks during a public meeting, observing that the allegations prima facie disclose cognisable offences warranting investigation.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj underscored that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly, particularly by persons of influence whose statements carry heightened societal impact.
The proceedings arose from a complaint alleging that the advocate addressed a public gathering in Hisar in connection with a 2024 murder case, repeatedly referring to certain villagers as “casteist goons” and making assertions that collectively imputed criminality and moral depravity to an entire caste.
The remarks were said to allege false involvement of a Scheduled Caste (SC) woman and others in the case, purportedly exerting pressure on her to withdraw a prior complaint filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR registered against the advocate invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 196, 352, 353, and 356, which criminalise conduct promoting disharmony, public disorder, or hostility between groups.
Upon examining the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court highlighted that public speeches must be assessed in their context, taking into account the audience, social milieu, and prevailing conditions. The repeated and deliberate references to caste, coupled with emotive expressions, were found to carry the real and imminent risk of inciting hostility, polarising the public, and disturbing public tranquillity. The Court noted that neutral or generic references would have sufficed to highlight alleged injustices without imputing collective blame.
It further observed that the advocate had exceeded the permissible boundaries of professional advocacy. While the role of a lawyer is confined to defending clients within the judicial process, addressing public gatherings, making unverified allegations against individuals, and uploading content online constituted public mobilisation, potentially influencing perceptions of ongoing proceedings. The Court drew upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021), reaffirming that persons wielding public influence owe an elevated duty of responsibility in the exercise of free speech.
Distinguishing precedents cited by the petitioner, including Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab and Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, the Court noted that those judgments arose from materially different factual contexts and could not justify quashing the FIR at the pre-trial stage. It emphasised that at this stage, the Court’s role was limited to determining whether the allegations prima facie disclose an offence; the motive attributed to the complainant or ultimate outcome of the case is immaterial.
Noting that the allegations prima facie constituted offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the High Court disposed of all pending applications seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
The post Punjab & Haryana High Court refuses to quash FIR against advocate over caste-based remarks appeared first on India Legal.