The Allahabad High Court has clarified that merely expressing support for Pakistan on social media, without referencing India or showing any disrespect to the country, does not prima facie amount to an offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with acts endangering the sovereignty or integrity of India.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made the observation while granting bail to an 18-year-old youth from Sambhal, Riyaz, who had posted an Instagram story stating, “Chahe jo ho jai support toh bas ….. Pakistan ka karenge” (Whatever happens, will only support Pakistan).
In his order passed on Thursday, Justice Deshwal noted, “Merely showing support to Pakistan without referring to any incident or mentioning the name of India, will not prima facie attract the offence under Section 152 BNS.”
The court examined the FIR and submissions made by both parties. Riyaz’s counsel argued that the post neither lowered the dignity of India nor displayed the Indian flag or any imagery that could be construed as disrespectful. He further contended that support for even an enemy nation does not, by itself, fulfill the ingredients required for a charge under Section 152 BNS.
Opposing the bail plea, the state government’s counsel maintained that such social media posts promote separatism and could endanger national unity.
However, the court emphasized that Section 152 BNS—introduced as a stringent provision with no equivalent in the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—must be invoked with care. The court stated that freedom of speech includes social media expression, and unless such expression actively promotes secession, rebellion, or separatist activity, it should not be narrowly interpreted.
The court added that while such posts may incite public anger or discord and could potentially fall under Section 196 BNS (relating to promoting enmity), they do not meet the threshold for prosecution under Section 152.
Justice Deshwal concluded that for Section 152 to apply, “there must be a purpose… to promote secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities or separatist feelings… which was not found in this case.”
Accordingly, the court allowed the bail application, underscoring the need to uphold constitutional protections of free speech while maintaining a reasoned application of new criminal provisions like Section 152 BNS.
