SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Friday, February 18, 2022

Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

W.P. (Crl) 558/2016

Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)

2016 SCC OnLine Del 1362 : (2016) 227 DLT 612 : (2016) 155 DRJ 225

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(BEFORE PRATIBHA RANI, J.)

Kanhaiya Kumar .…. Petitioner

Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, Ms. Rebecca M. John, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Sushil Bajaj, Mr. Bankim Kulshreshtha, Ms. Vrinda Grover, Mr. Vishal Gosain, Mr. Victor
Dhissa, Mr. Bajinder, Ms. Tarannum Cheema and Mr. Harsh Bora, Advocates.
v.
State of NCT of Delhi .…. Respondent
Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG, Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG, Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Anil Soni, Special PP, Mr. Shailendra Babbar, Special PP, Mr. Mukesh Gupta,
Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Rishabh Juneja, Mr. Rajat Nair, Mr. Manan Popli, Mr. Aadit
Khorana, Ms. Ruchi Jain, Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate for the State.
Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal) for Govt. of NCT of Delhi with Ms.
Richa Kapoor, ASC, Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC, Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC and Mr. Aditya
Swarup Aggarwal, Advocate.
W.P. (Crl) 558/2016 and Crl. M.A. Nos. 3237/2016 & 3262/2016
Decided on March 2, 2016
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)
‘Rang hara Hari Singh Nalve se,
Rang laal hai Lal Bahadur se,
Rang bana basanti Bhagat Singh,
Rang aman ka veer Jawahar se.
Mere Desh ki Dharti sona ugle
Ugle here moti mere desh ki dharti’
1. This patriotic song from ‘Upkaar’ by Lyricist Indeevar symbolizes individual
characteristics representing by different colours and love for motherland.
2. Spring season is a time when nature becomes green and flower blooms in all
colours. This spring why the colour of peace is eluding the prestigious Jawaharlal
Nehru University (JNU) situated in the heart of Delhi needs to be answered by its
students, faculty members and those managing the affairs of this national university.
3. On 9th February, 2016 a programme was proposed to be organised under the title
‘Poetry Reading - The Country Without A Post Office’ at Sabarmati Dhaba, Jawaharlal
Nehru University. Since the title of the programme did not suggest anything
objectionable, permission was granted. When the posters of the said programme
revealed the topic of the programme to be organized that evening, the authorities at
JNU acted swiftly by cancelling the permission and communicating the same to the
organizers as well the security staff. What followed thereafter has been recorded in FIR
No. 110/2016 under Section 124-A/34 IPC at PS Vasant Kunj North. The status report
shows that now the case is under investigation for the offence punishable under
Sections 124-A/120-B/34/147/149 IPC.
4. In the writ petition bearing W.P. (Crl.) No. 29/2016 the Supreme Court on
19.02.2016 ordered for transmitting the record of bail petition of petitioner Kanhaiya
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kumar to High Court of Delhi for hearing by passing the following order:-
‘After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Solicitor General and the
submissions of other members of the Bar (who volunteered to make submissions in
this matter), we are of the opinion that the present petition be transmitted to the
Delhi High Court for consideration of the prayer for bail of accused Kanhaiya Kumar
in FIR No. 110/2016 filed at PS Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. We also grant liberty to the
petitioner to file such further petitions or other material which he deems
appropriate to bring the application in tune with the requirement of law. We permit
the petitioner to move the Delhi High Court today. We request the Delhi High Court
to consider the application expeditiously and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law.
Having regard to the background in which the instant application came to be
filed, certain apprehensions were expressed at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner
and other learned members of the Bar that some special precautions are required to
be taken which the proceedings are taken by the Delhi High Court to ensure the
safety of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the journalists.
Having regard to the history of the case, we deem it appropriate to request the
High Court to take such appropriate steps at it deems fit and proper to ensure the
peaceful conduct of the proceedings. We also place on record that the learned
Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India as well as the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi assure that all necessary precautions will be taken in consultation with
the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court for the peaceful conduct of the case.
The writ petition is disposed of and transmitted to the Delhi High Court. The
Registry is directed is transmit the papers to the Delhi High Court forthwith along
with the order.’
5. This is how the bail application of the petitioner made in W.P. (Crl.) No.
558/2016 is being heard by this Court.
6. The writ petitioner before this Court seeks his release on bail in case FIR No.
110/2016 under Sections 124-A/120-B/34/147/149 IPC registered at PS Vasant Kunj
North asserting that the charge of sedition levelled against him is false as he has
never made any seditious utterances or raised any anti-national slogans on 9th
February, 2016.
7. Referring to the contents of FIR, the petitioner has claimed that there was no
incident of violence after the alleged incident of raising alleged anti-national slogans.
Rather the JNU Campus remained peaceful and no disturbance was reported from
within the campus. The so called video recording of the incident by some channels has
been reported to be doctored by the Press. The petitioner has been remanded to police
custody thrice and has also joined the investigation. He is no more required for
investigation of this case.
8. In his speech delivered on 11th February, 2016 the petitioner has projected
himself to be a law abiding citizen having full faith in the Constitution. The petitioner
has claimed himself to be a public figure and member of AISF Students Political Party
affiliated to Communist Party of India. He is also President of Jawaharlal Nehru
University Students Union. He is pursuing Ph.d. at School of International Studies,
Jawaharlal Nehru University. He has deep roots in the society. He is the victim of
conspiracy by certain vested elements who are fabricating evidence against him. There
is no possibility of his being capable of tampering with the evidence.
9. The petitioner asserts his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India on the ground that the utterances (speech or slogans)
attributable to him cannot be termed to be in violation of any law and as such he has
not committed any offence. The petitioner has agreed to abide by the terms and
conditions that may be imposed in case he is ordered to be released on bail.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Detailed status report has been filed by the State which also includes slogans
raised and some of photographs of the event.
11. I have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner as well
as Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State and Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing
Counsel (Criminal) for Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
12. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner Kanhaiya
Kumar has submitted that the incident dated 9th February, 2016 has to be divided in
three parts:-
(i) from 4.30 pm to 7.25 pm
(ii) from 7.25 pm to 8.30 pm
(iii) After 8.30 pm
13. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has placed on record
the photocopy of the proforma for booking venue for the event and the undertaking
annexed therewith which is not signed by the petitioner.
14. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner has no role in that event. His name also does not appear on the poster
about the topic of that event, contents of which were considered anti-national by JNU
authorities. The petitioner has not been seen raising anti-national slogans in any of the
video footage. Rather on 11th February, 2016 the petitioner had given a speech, full
text of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-G (as reported by Indian
Express). In the said speech, the petitioner had raised his voice against those who
were trying to break the country and break JNU. He has asserted that JNU will
strengthen the voice of democracy, voice of independence, freedom of expression and
he has expressed full faith in the Constitution of India.
15. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court to the contents of FIR wherein referring to the Zee News
Programme telecasted on 10th February, 2016 in the evening, it has been recorded
that in the clipping, JNU students were seen raising anti-national slogans (Pakistan
Jindabad). However, this slogan does not find mention in the thirty slogans quoted
from pages 3 to 5 of the status report filed by the State.
16. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that
role of the petitioner Kanhaiya Kumar is limited to the extent that he reached the spot
in his capacity as President of JNU Students Union, on coming to know about the
tension between the two groups. After the situation came under control, he left the
spot. There was no untoward incident leading to violence in the campus on that day.
The petitioner is stated to have reached the spot at about 7.30 pm and it is mentioned
in the status report (para 32) that after the situation was brought under control by
8.30 - 9.00 pm, all the students reached Ganga Dhaba, some of the leaders including
petitioner addressed them and thereafter they dispersed. The speech made by the
petitioner Kanhaiya Kumar on 11th February, 2016 cannot be termed as anti-national
and whatever he has stated in that speech is within his right to freedom of speech
guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate
for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been remanded to police
custody thrice and he is no more required for investigation. In the circumstances, he
may be ordered to be released on bail.
17. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State has submitted that on 8th
February, 2016 permission was initially sought by a group of students for organising a
cultural evening at Sabarmati Dhaba at JNU Campus which was granted. The subject
matter of the programme was referred to as ‘Poetry Reading - The Country Without A
Post Office’. The permission was granted to them to conduct the programme from 5.00
pm to 7.30 pm on 9th February, 2016.
18. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State has referred to further
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

developments. The JNU authorities on getting the information that in the guise of
cultural function, some anti-national activities were to take place, cancelled the
permission and the organising group was duly informed. The reason being that the
posters about the proposed programme were against the judicial killing of Afzal Guru
and Maqbool Bhatt and have been put up at all the hostels and these activities were
likely to disrupt the peace and harmony of the campus. Apprehending breach of peace
at the campus, the Chief Security Officer, JNU as well local police was informed. There
were arguments between the students on one side and security staff on other side on
fixing the mike and other equipments. The local police assisted by security staff and
positioned themselves between the two groups to maintain distance between them.
The shouting of anti-national slogans continued unabated which were
opposed/countered by the other group of students by shouting slogans in support of
the nation. In this process, the students from both the groups had at many times
engaged in verbal as well as physical jostling and heckling. This situation led to law
and order problem which disturbed the public order in JNU campus. The situation was
brought under control by 8.30 to 9.00 pm. Both the groups reached Ganga Dhaba
where some of the students leaders addressed the assembly before dispersing.
19. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State has further stated that on the
basis of telecast by Zee News on 10th February, 2016 about the incident at JNU on 9th
February, 2016, raw video footage was obtained from that channel and thereafter FIR
No. 110/2016 under Sections 124-A/120-B/34/147/149 IPC was registered at PS
Vasant Kunj North.
20. Alongwith the status report, the State has placed on record certain photographs
to point out that some of the persons in the photographs are covering their faces.
Their identity and links are not known to the investigating agency. Posters having
photographs of Afzal Guru have been held by the students. The posters for the
programme to be organised on 9th February, 2016 is with the heading ‘Against the
judicial killing of Afzal Guru & Maqbool Bhatt’. The permission was applied by co-
accused Umar Khalid on the prescribed proforma for ‘Poetry Reading - The Country
Without A Post Office’ and it was only from the posters circulated on 9th February,
2016 that the authorities at JNU came to know about the nature of the programme
being anti-national resultantly permission was withdrawn.
21. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State has referred to the statement of
various witnesses recorded under Section 161 CPC to describe the role played by the
petitioner in organising as well as during the event. It has been submitted that merely
because the petitioner is not a signatory on the application form for seeking
permission for the programme, is not sufficient to infer that he has nothing to do with
the event. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the fact that as per the statement
of witnesses (learned ASG did not want to disclose the identity of the witnesses
examined under Section 161 CrPC though copies of same have been placed on record),
the petitioner also talked to the concerned authorities showing his resentment about
the cancellation of the permission and his active participation in the event, which led
to a situation that police had to be called and both the factions of the students raising
slogans were separated.
22. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State has further submitted that the
speech given by the petitioner on 11th February, 2016 was part of his strategy to
create a defence.
23. Referring to the details of the investigation conducted till filing of the status
report as well various aspects on which the investigation is yet to be conducted, prayer
for bail has been strongly opposed on the ground that the slogans raised during the
programme as well honoring martyrdom of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt justified
registration of a case under Sections 124-A/120-B/34/147/149 IPC against the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

petitioner and other accused persons involved which can be established not only by
video footage but also by independent evidence.
24. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal) for Government of NCT of Delhi
has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may be
released on bail.
25. The writ petitioner before this Court is President of JNU Students Union. His
presence at the spot on the day of incident when alleged anti-national event was
organised, is not disputed. He explains his presence for not to participate in the
activities but to control the unpleasant situation that had arisen because of conflict
between two factions of the students having different political affiliations.
26. The FIR in this case has been registered only about three weeks back. The
investigation has now been transferred to Special Cell. At this stage, a detailed
examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to
ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice, a brief examination for satisfying
about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary. (Ref. State
through C.B.I. v. Amarmani Tripathi AIR 2005 SC 3490)
27. The principles governing bail have also been considered by the apex Court in
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 as under:
‘10. Before we discuss the various arguments and the material relied upon by the
parties for and against grant of bail, it is necessary to know the law in regard to
grant of bail in nonbailable offences.
11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court
granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of
having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer
from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to
consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail;
they are,
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction
and the nature of supporting evidence;
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of
threat to the complainant;
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge;’
28. Thus, within the above limited scope, it would be necessary to refer to the
material available to decide this bail application. The facts as noted in the FIR have
already been narrated. Alongwith the status report, slogans (thirty) as well various
photographs of the event have been annexed.
29. To examine the instant case for the limited purpose of consideration of bail,
here I would like to refer to some of the slogans and refer some of the photographs:-
Slogans:
‘1. AFZAL GURU MAQBOOL BHATT JINDABAD.
2. BHARAT KI BARBADI TAK JUNG RAHEGI JUNG RAHEGI
3. GO INDIA GO BACK
4. INDIAN ARMY MURDABAD
5. BHARAT TERE TUKKDE HONGE-INSHAALLAHA INSHAALLAHA
6. AFZAL KI HATYA NAHI SAHENGE NAHI SAHENGE
7. BANDOOK KI DUM PE LENGE AAZADI.’
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. The petitioner is President of JNU Students Union and actively involved in
various activities carried out in the University. He admits his presence at the spot on
the alleged date of occurrence. The photographs of the incidents placed on record have
been filed to show his presence at the spot. The limited controversy as on date is
whether the petitioner was actively participating in the alleged anti-national activities
on that day or he was present there only to intervene between two rival factions of the
students. What was the role played by the petitioner on that day is subject matter of
investigation and it is desirable at this stage to leave it to the investigating agency to
unearth the truth. It is not disputed by the State at this stage that in the footage of
video recording of the incident, the petitioner has not been seen raising anti-national
slogans but learned ASG for the State has referred to the statement of various
witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC who have stated about the presence as
well active participation of the petitioner in that incident. The petitioner takes shelter
under the speech made by him on 11th February, 2016 affirming his allegiance to the
Constitution of India to defeat the forces indulged in disintegration of the country.
Whether the speech dated 11th February, 2016 by the petitioner contains his original
thoughts and faith in the Constitution and nationalist approach, or the speech was to
create a safety gear for himself is again something which cannot be examined by this
Court at this stage.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. Section 124-A of Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:

“124A. Sedition.—Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by
visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or
contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government
established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which
fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to
which fine may be added, or with fine.”
32. Thus, the punishment which can be awarded for the above offence are:
(i) imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or;
(ii) with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be
added, or;
(iii) with fine.”
33. It is again subject to outcome of investigation that will determine the category
in which the accusations against the petitioner would fall.
34. What constitutes sedition has been recently considered by Gujarat High Court
in Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 2016 (1) RCR (Criminal) 542 as under:-
14. I should be mindful of the fact that the case in hand is one wherein the
accused is praying for quashing of the F.I.R. at a stage when the investigation is in
progress. I should look into the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., as they are without
adding or subtracting anything from it. I am of the view that a speech or a
statement, in which the speaker exhorts the persons, who are listening to him, to
resort to violence, prima facie, could be said to be intended to excite disaffection
towards the established Government and amounts to an offence under Section
124A of the Penal Code, 1860. To put it in other words, to advise a person to
persuade to violence as a means of attaining a particular goal or seeking revenge is
not less objectionable then advising that person to commit violence himself for that
purpose. In either case, the advice is to pursue a course of action, it is calculated to
disturb the tranquility of the State. It is a recommendation to oppose the
established Government by force.
35. While seeking release on bail, the writ petitioner Kanhaiya Kumar has also
asserted his constitutional right to freedom to speech confirmed under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India.
36. In the case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 the expression
“freedom of speech and expression” has been considered as under:-
“13. This leads us to a discussion of what is the content of the expression
“freedom of speech and expression”. There are three concepts which are
fundamental in understanding the reach of this most basic of human rights. The
first is discussion, the second is advocacy, and the third is incitement. Mere
discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the
heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the
level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in.3 It is at this stage that a law may be
made curtailing the speech or expression that leads inexorably to or tends to cause
public disorder or tends to cause or tends to affect the sovereignty & integrity of
India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, etc.”
37. The vision and object of Jawaharlal Nehru University as reflected in the Website
of University is:
‘………
The living ambience and social milieu of the campus is also reflected in an
integrated, interdisciplinary approach in teaching and research. There is freedom to
define and design course content or start new courses. Research themes evolve
with new developments in the area and the interface between different areas of
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

study. Everyone at the university competes with himself/herself to excel in their

own field of research. JNU is academically and socially a vibrant place where all
have space to express their views.
The JNU campus is a microcosm of the Indian nation, drawing students from
every nook and corner of the country and from every group and stratum of society.
To make sure that this is so, annual admission tests are simultaneously held at 37
centres spread across the length and breadth of the country, and special care is
taken to draw students from the underprivileged castes and ethic groups by
reserving 22.5 per cent of seats for them. Overseas students form some 10 percent
of the annual intake. Students' hostels and blocks of faculty residences are
interspersed with one another, underlining the vision of a large Indian family.”
38. Today I find myself standing on a crossroad. The FIR in question has been
registered only on 11th February, 2016. Investigation is at the initial stage. The
petitioner is the President of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union. His presence
at the spot on 9th February, 2016 has been claimed on the basis of raw video footing of
that day i.e. 9th February, 2016. The petitioner at present is in judicial custody. The
question is, in view of the nature of serious allegations against him, the anti-national
attitude which can be gathered from the material relied upon by the State should be a
ground to keep him in Jail.
39. As President of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union, the petitioner was
expected to be responsible and accountable for any anti-national event organised in
the campus. Freedom of speech guaranteed to the citizens of this country under the
Constitution of India has enough room for every citizen to follow his own ideology or
political affiliation within the framework of our Constitution. While dealing with the bail
application of the petitioner, it has to be kept in mind by all concerned that they are
enjoying this freedom only because our borders are guarded by our armed and
paramilitary forces. Our forces are protecting our frontiers in the most difficult terrain
in the world i.e. Siachen Glacier or Rann of Kutch.
40. It is a case of raising anti-national slogans which do have the effect of
threatening national integrity. The averments made in para 14 of the writ petition is
extracted as under:-
‘14. That the petitioner has committed no offence whatsoever, and the wild and
baseless allegations being made against him are not only irresponsible and false,
but have also caused serious harm to his reputation. As a responsible students'
union President, the petitioner has never sought to subvert the law. The petitioner
is a proud citizen of India and has always affirmed his faith in the Constitution of
India. The petitioner now seeks the protection of his life, liberty and rights as
guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The utterances (speech or slogans)
attributable to the petitioner, is not in violation of any law, or the Constitution of
India, and as such the petitioner has committed no offence.’
41. Suffice it to note that such persons enjoy the freedom to raise such slogans in
the comfort of University Campus but without realising that they are in this safe
environment because our forces are there at the battle field situated at the highest
altitude of the world where even the oxygen is so scarce that those who are shouting
anti-national slogans holding posters of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt close to their
chest honoring their martyrdom, may not be even able to withstand those conditions
for an hour even.
42. The kind of slogans raised may have demoralizing effect on the family of those
martyrs who returned home in coffin draped in tricolor.
43. The petitioner claims his right regarding freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed in Part-III under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. He has also to
be reminded that under Part-IV under Article 51A of Constitution of India fundamental

use this rights and duties , and two side of the coin from both the sides.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

duties of every citizen have been specified alongwith the fact that rights and duties
are two sides of the same coin.
44. The petitioner belongs to an intellectual class pursuing Ph.d. from International
School of Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, which is considered as hub of
intellectuals. He may have any political affiliation or ideology. He has every right to
pursue that but it can be only within the framework of our Constitution. India is a
living example of unity in diversity. Freedom of expression enjoyed by every citizen
can be subjected to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of our Constitution. The
feelings or the protest reflected in the slogans needs introspection by the student
community whose photographs are available on record holding posters carrying
photographs of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt.
45. The faculty of JNU also has to play its role in guiding them to the right path so
that they can contribute to the growth of the nation and to achieve the object and
vision for which Jawaharlal Nehru University was established.
46. The reason behind anti-national views in the mind of students who raised
slogans on the death anniversary of Afzal Guru, who was convicted for attack on our
Parliament, which led to this situation have not only to be found by them but remedial
steps are also required to be taken in this regard by those managing the affairs of the
JNU so that there is no recurrence of such incident.
47. The investigation in this case is at nascent stage. The thoughts reflected in the
slogans raised by some of the students of JNU who organized and participated in that
programme cannot be claimed to be protected as fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression. I consider this as a kind of infection from which such students
are suffering which needs to be controlled/cured before it becomes an epidemic.
48. Whenever some infection is spread in a limb, effort is made to cure the same by
giving antibiotics orally and if that does not work, by following second line of
treatment. Sometimes it may require surgical intervention also. However, if the
infection results in infecting the limb to the extent that it becomes gangrene,
amputation is the only treatment.
49. During the period spent by the petitioner in judicial custody, he might have
introspected about the events that had taken place. To enable him to remain in the
main stream, at present I am inclined to provide conservative method of treatment.
50. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release
the petitioner on interim bail for a period of six months.
51. Once the decision of releasing the petitioner on interim bail is taken, now the
question comes as to what should be the amount for monetary security. In his speech
dated 11th February, 2016 the petitioner has claimed that his mother works as
Anganbadi worker and earns Rs. 3000/- per month on which the entire family
survives. If this aspect is considered then the amount to be required to be filled in the
personal bond and surety bond cannot be so high as to put him in a position that he
cannot avail the interim bail.
52. The time is ripe that while giving some concession to the petitioner on
monetary aspect for purpose of furnishing the bond, he can be required to furnish an
undertaking to the effect that he will not participate actively or passively in any
activity which may be termed as anti-national. Apart from that, as President of JNU
Students Union, he will make all efforts within his power to control anti-national
activities in the campus. His surety should also be either a member of the Faculty or a
person related to the petitioner in a manner that he can exercise control on the
petitioner not only with respect to appearance before the Court but also to ensure that
his thoughts and energy are channelized in a constructive manner.
53. I may record here that the affidavit filed alongwith this petition is by Professor
Himanshu as parokar, Resident Warden 3, Jhelum Hostel, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Friday, February 18, 2022
Printed For: Ayushi Soni, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delhi.
54. The petitioner is granted interim bail for a period of six months on his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and an undertaking on above
lines, with one surety, who should preferably be a Faculty member of Jawaharlal Nehru
University, to the satisfaction of learned concerned Metropolitan Magistrate/Link
Metropolitan Magistrate, with the condition that he shall not leave the country without
the permission of the Court. The surety shall also furnish an undertaking on the lines
similar to that of the petitioner.
55. The writ petition stands allowed in above terms.
56. The observations made above are only for the purpose of deciding the bail
application and shall not be considered as an expression on merits.
57. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
information and compliance.
58. Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties under the signature of Court
Master.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.