The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that merely praising another country without denouncing India does not amount to sedition, as it granted bail to a man accused of posting content on social media deemed “inflammatory and against the interest of the nation.”

The order was passed on August 19 by Justice Rakesh Kainthla.

The case involved Suleman, a fruit vendor from Paonta Sahib in Sirmour district, who allegedly shared an AI-generated photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Facebook with the caption “Pakistan Zindabad.”

Following the post, an acquaintance lodged a first information report (FIR) against him on May 27 under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023, accusing him of writing in favour of Pakistan and against the Prime Minister. Suleman surrendered on June 8 and had been in custody since then.

In his bail plea, Suleman maintained that he was innocent and falsely implicated. His counsel argued that writing “Pakistan Zindabad” alone could not be construed as inciting hatred, and pointed to an earlier case in which the same high court had upheld this position. The prosecution, however, contended that given the strained relationship between India and Pakistan, such a post was “anti-national.”

Justice Kainthla, while hearing the matter, observed that the complaint failed to establish “that hatred or discontent was brought towards the government established by law in India.”

He further noted: “Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offence of sedition because it does not incite armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities.”

Concluding that there was “insufficient material” to connect Suleman with the alleged crime, the court granted him bail.

Section 152 of the BNS, under which Suleman was charged, criminalises “acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.”

While the word sedition is not used, the section effectively replaces Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code that had previously governed sedition cases. The Supreme Court had earlier suspended trials and proceedings under the old provision while the government reconsidered the law.

Legal experts have echoed similar concerns. A report in The Hindu noted that the absence of a clear definition of what constitutes “endangering” sovereignty, unity and integrity, combined with the lack of a statutory requirement to establish a causal link between speech and its consequences, makes Section 152 open to misuse and a potential threat to personal liberty.

The Suleman case has now added to the growing debate on the scope and application of the new provision, highlighting its potential for overreach in matters of free speech.