PolityGovernance
News 21 of 31

Punjab & Haryana HC: Mere Sloganeering Not Sedition Under Section 124-A IPC; Dissent vs Hatred

PolityHIGH
Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCSSC GATeachingPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link
15 Jul 2026
~2 min
Source: The Hindu
Key Data:Section 124-A IPCJuly 2, 2026Punjab and Haryana High Court
Bodies:Punjab and Haryana High Court
Practice MCQs from today's news ▸
What This Article Covers

1.Punjab and Haryana HC dismissed state appeal, upheld acquittal under Section 124-A IPC – sloganeering is not sedition.

2.Court distinguishes between dissent (frustration/outrage) and disaffection/hatred – violent protest may be rioting but not sedition.

3.Observations reinforce strict scrutiny of ingredients for grave charges and burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Big Picture
Prelims · HighMains · High

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that mere sloganeering against the government does not constitute sedition under Section 124-A IPC, as it is an expression of dissent, not hatred or disaffection. The ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of sedition law and upholds the acquittal of four accused, highlighting the importance of procedural safeguards like test identification parades.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

IPC Section124-A (Sedition)
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Order DateJuly 2, 2026

1-Minute Revision

  • ›IPC Section: 124-A (Sedition)
  • ›Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
  • ›Target this Data: Section 124-A IPC – sedition
  • ›Target this Legal Point: Ingredients of sedition – hatred/contempt/disaffection vs dissent
  • ›Target this Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court (order dated July 2, 2026)

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

Q1Static LinkageEasy

Which section of the Indian Penal Code deals with sedition?

Q2Statement-basedMedium

Consider the following statements regarding the recent Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment:

1. Sloganeering against the government is sufficient ground to charge a person with sedition.

2. The High Court dismissed the state's appeal against the acquittal of four accused.

3. Violent protest may constitute rioting but does not automatically amount to sedition.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMedium

On which date did the Punjab and Haryana High Court pass its order in this case?

Q4Application/ImpactMedium

What did the Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasize regarding the burden of proof in this case?

All 25 MCQs ▸
You finished this topic
Explore Related Topics
Related Current Affairs
Polity Current Affairs

Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Regularisation from 2003 Under Article 14 Equality Clause

The Punjab and Haryana High Court reinforced the principle that administrative inaction cannot strip a worker of accrued rights under a valid regularisation policy. The court ordered the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board to regularise a daily-wage employee from 2003, applying Article 14's equality mandate. This judgment is crucial for understanding labour jurisprudence, the concept of 'model employer', and the enforceability of government policies.

Polity Current Affairs

Punjab Refuses Consent for HC Chief Justice Appointment; MoP Breach Raises Judicial Appointment Process Concerns

Punjab's refusal to consent to Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra's appointment as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana HC exposes a loophole in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for judicial appointments. The episode underscores the need for defined timelines for state responses in judicial appointments, a key issue for UPSC Polity and Governance.

Polity Current Affairs

Madras HC: No Sanction Needed Under BNSS Section 218 for Disproportionate Assets Cases

The Madras High Court has ruled that no prior sanction is required under Section 197 CrPC or Section 218 BNSS to prosecute public servants for disproportionate assets, because such an offence has no nexus with official duty. The ruling, which refused to discharge former DMK Minister M.R.K. Panneerselvam and his family, clarifies a key examiner-relevant dimension of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Stays HC Order Declaring NSEI as 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act Section 2(h)

The Supreme Court has stayed a Delhi High Court order that declared the National Stock Exchange of India (NSEI) a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. This means citizens cannot currently enforce their right to information from NSEI. The case challenges whether a stock exchange, though controlled by the government, should be treated as a public authority.

Polity Current Affairs

Parliamentary Panel Demands Meta Apology Over PM Video Removal, Threatens Revocation of Safe Harbour Under IT Act Section 79

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and IT, chaired by Nishikant Dubey, has demanded Meta apologize for erroneously blocking PM Modi's video, or face revocation of safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act. Similar action is threatened against Google India for financial frauds. This highlights the government's push to enforce intermediary accountability and the conditional nature of safe harbour immunity.

Polity Current Affairs

TN Withdraws RTI Exemption for Law and Order Dept Under Section 24(4); 2,000+ Citizens Seek CJI Intervention on SIR

Tamil Nadu government withdrew its controversial order exempting the Public (Law and Order) Department from the RTI Act after widespread backlash. Separately, over 2,000 citizens have written to the Chief Justice of India to stay the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and initiate suo motu proceedings against the Election Commission's conduct.

Polity Current Affairs

Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention for Procedural Lapses under BNSS Section 126, Awards ₹5,000 Compensation

The Allahabad High Court quashed the NSA detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, a DU graduate, holding that the state concocted the story and violated procedural safeguards under BNSS Section 126. This reinforces judicial scrutiny of preventive detention laws and the importance of habeas corpus petitions.

Polity Current Affairs

Allahabad HC Rules CCTV Footage Exempt Under RTI Section 8(1)(g), Cannot Be Provided Directly

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that CCTV footage cannot be directly provided to an applicant under the RTI Act as it is exempt under Section 8(1)(g). However, a court or commission can direct preservation and production of such footage after a complaint is filed. This clarifies the scope of RTI exemptions and the procedure for accessing sensitive information.