Slogans advocating secession fall under unlawful activity, rules High Court
FIRDOUS AHMAD
SRINAGAR, July 25: In a significant ruling with wide legal and political implications, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has made it clear that slogans or assertions advocating that Jammu and Kashmir is “illegally occupied” by India or should be separated from the Union fall squarely within the ambit of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar passed the judgment while setting aside an earlier order by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge for UAPA trials in Baramulla, Bandipora, and Kupwara districts), which had discharged the accused from prosecution under Section 13 of the UAPA.
The accused, who were facing trial under FIR No. 41/2015 registered at Police Station Bandipora, had been let off by the trial court on the premise that they were “merely raising slogans” without committing any overt acts of violence, and thus, Section 13 of the UAPA — which criminalizes incitement or advocacy of unlawful activities — was not applicable.
However, the High Court firmly disagreed with this reasoning and termed the trial court’s view as “palpably wrong” and “suffering from non-application of mind”. According to the High Court, the trial judge failed to appreciate the statements made by prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC, who claimed the accused openly advocated secessionist views by asserting that J&K was “illegally occupied” and must be separated from India.
Quoting Section 13(1) of the UAPA, the Division Bench stated that any person who “takes part in, incites, advocates, or abets” an unlawful activity — including secession or territorial disintegration — can be punished with imprisonment up to seven years along with a fine. The bench underscored that the accused’s conduct, as per the investigation, involved direct advocacy and incitement of unlawful activity, which legally classifies as an offence under UAPA.
“This was not a matter of mere sloganeering,” the Bench ruled. “The accused were advocating secession, which is covered under the definition of ‘unlawful activity’ as per Section 2(1)(o) of the UAPA.”
The Court further held that the order of discharge was “not sustainable on any count”, labeling it as perverse in law. It, therefore, reinstated the charge sheet and directed the trial court to proceed with the framing of charges under Section 13 of the UAPA and carry forward the trial in accordance with law.
This judgment is likely to set a precedent in how courts interpret public speech that borders on advocating territorial disintegration, particularly in a sensitive region like Jammu and Kashmir.
