Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan of the Karnataka High Court has observed that the protest by the Campus Front of India (CFI) against the Supreme Court’s Judgement in the Ayodhya Babri Masjid Case was nothing but promoting enmity between two groups on the ground of religion.

The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by one resident of the Mangaluru area against a suo moto case registered by the police. The police had received information that Campus Front of India (CFI) which is a part of Popular Front of India (PFI) was raising slogans against the Supreme Court’s Judgement of the Ayodhya Babri Masjid Case inside the Mangaluru University. Therefore, the petitioner and the other persons raising slogans were arrested by the police for outraging religious feelings.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was innocent and there was no direct evidence against him. He also argued that the witness did not take the name of the petitioner before the police and nothing was found in his possession. Further, he also submitted before the court that the petitioner did not belong to the said organization and he was falsely implicated in the case.

The Government Pleader on the other hand argued that the petitioner was a member of CFI and he had protested against the Ayodhya judgment. Further, he argued that the name of the petitioner was in the complaint and the police officer on patrolling duty had also mentioned his name. He argued that by raising slogans the petitioner tried to create disharmony and enmity between two groups and therefore he should face trial.

The High Court in its observed that:

“The case in hand stands on different footing, where the accused persons being the part of the CFI organizations and the petitioner being the local person residing near the university campus of Mangaluru went along with the others with the banner of CFI and protested against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case which is nothing but promoting enmity between two groups on the ground of religion, which act is prejudicial to maintenance of harmony in Mangaluru area, where the accused persons agitated against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case, and it cannot be taken as very lighter way.”

However, the High Court in its order noted that neither the petitioner argued on the point that sanction which is required from the state for an offence against the state nor the government pleader had shown on record any sanction which was granted by the State Government for registering an offense under Section 153-A of IPC.

Therefore, while allowing the petition and quashing the proceeding against the petitioner the High Court noted,

“The learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance without considering the fact as to whether the prosecution has obtained sanction from the State. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed for want of sanction.”

Case title: Sri Safwan vs State of Karnataka