High Court Declares Sloganeering Against National Sovereignty as Unlawful Activity Under UAPA

Published On: July 23, 2025

In a landmark judgment that reaffirms the nation’s legal stance on unlawful activities, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has ruled that anti-national sloganeering falls under the purview of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This decision came as the Division Bench set aside an earlier Trial Court order that had discharged two accused individuals involved in such actions.

This ruling not only strengthens the legislative interpretation of what constitutes unlawful activity under UAPA but also signals the judiciary’s firm commitment to preserving the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Case Background: Anti-National Incident in Bandipora

The case revolves around FIR No. 41/2015, registered at Police Station Bandipora. The two accused—Ameer Hamza Shah of Qull Muqam and Rayees Ahmad Mir of Kehnusa Bandipora—were booked for delivering anti-national speeches after Friday prayers on March 20, 2015. They allegedly incited the public by raising slogans that challenged India’s sovereignty and called for secession of Jammu & Kashmir from the Union of India.

Following a comprehensive investigation, the police filed a chargesheet under the UAPA, and the accused were arrested but later released on bail.

Trial Court’s Decision: Discharge of Accused Sparks Controversy

In September 2021, the Trial Court dismissed the chargesheet, citing that merely raising slogans did not amount to an action “prejudicial to the integrity of the country.” According to the Trial Court, the lack of direct incitement to violence or any physical act meant the accused did not qualify for charges under UAPA.

High Court’s Rebuttal: Miscarriage of Justice Corrected

The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, found the Trial Court’s reasoning deeply flawed. In a sharply worded ruling, the Bench emphasized that:

“The Trial Court erred by conducting a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and evaluating the evidence beyond its legal purview.”

They added that discharging the accused at this stage, without proper evaluation of the chargesheet and witness statements, resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.

What Constitutes ‘Unlawful Activity’ under UAPA?

The Court clarified that any act that supports the cessation or secession of any part of India falls directly within the ambit of “unlawful activity” under the UAPA. This includes not only violent activities but also verbal advocacy, public speeches, and propaganda aimed at encouraging division.

In this particular case, the accused allegedly:

Called Jammu & Kashmir an “occupied territory”.
Urged people to initiate a struggle for secession.
Delivered public speeches that advocated separation from India.

These actions were considered to be a clear violation of Section 2(o) of the UAPA, which defines “unlawful activity” as any assertion that disrupts the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.

Court’s Observation: Slogans Are Not Harmless Words

The High Court rejected the Trial Court’s view that slogans are harmless unless accompanied by violent action. Instead, it affirmed:

“The essence of the UAPA is not just in curbing violent acts, but also in tackling the ideological propagation of secessionist and anti-national sentiments.”

Hence, even if the accused did not commit physical violence, their words and incitement constituted an unlawful activity.

Legal Significance: Strengthening UAPA Implementation

This verdict has far-reaching implications for national security laws in India. It makes clear that:

Freedom of speech does not extend to advocating secession.
Sloganeering with secessionist intent can be criminally prosecuted.
Courts must avoid prematurely evaluating evidence at the charge-framing stage.

The Court reinstated the chargesheet and directed the Trial Court to frame charges under UAPA and proceed in accordance with law.

Judicial Accountability and the Role of the Trial Court

The High Court criticized the Trial Court for overstepping its role during the preliminary stage of the case. According to the Bench:

The Trial Court conducted an inquiry that resembled a final trial.
It failed to apply its mind to the legal definitions under UAPA.
It ignored substantive evidence submitted by the investigating agency.

By setting aside the discharge order, the High Court restored judicial balance and reinforced the role of proper legal scrutiny at each stage of criminal proceedings.

This judgment is a clear message that verbal propaganda, when used to threaten India’s unity, will not be treated lightly. The interpretation of UAPA has been broadened to include seditious sloganeering and incitement, ensuring that ideological threats are met with the same seriousness as physical violence.

In a time when national security and internal peace are of utmost importance, this ruling reinforces the need to interpret the law with patriotic sensitivity and constitutional responsibility.