The bench said the phrase, which translates to a call for beheading as punishment for insulting the Prophet, goes far beyond protected expression and seeks to legitimise violence by mobilising individuals to act as executioners. Such exhortations, the court noted, undermine the criminal justice system by encouraging crowds to take the law into their own hands, eroding public order and threatening national unity.
In its assessment, the court drew a clear line between dissent or religious sentiment and speech that provokes violence. It stressed that the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions, including those necessary to protect public order, morality and the security of the State. Slogans that glorify or demand violent retribution, the bench said, fall squarely outside constitutional protection because they normalise brutality and seek to supplant the rule of law with mob justice.
The order underscored that punishment for any alleged offence, including blasphemy-related allegations, can only be determined by courts of law after due process. Any call that suggests an automatic or extrajudicial penalty, especially one involving killing, was described as an affront to the constitutional framework and to the idea of India as a nation governed by laws rather than impulses.
Legal observers note that the court’s reasoning reflects a broader judicial trend of scrutinising speech acts not merely for their literal content but for their likely impact in volatile social contexts. By characterising the slogan as incitement to armed rebellion, the bench signalled that the threshold for State intervention is crossed when words create a foreseeable risk of violence or insurrection.
The case before the court involved allegations that the slogan was raised in a public setting, prompting police action under provisions dealing with promoting enmity, disturbing public tranquillity and acts prejudicial to national integrity. While the court examined the facts specific to the accused, its observations were framed in general terms, indicating how similar expressions would be viewed under constitutional and criminal law.
Senior advocates say the ruling reinforces earlier Supreme Court guidance that hate speech and incitement must be assessed in context, including the audience, timing and prevailing social tensions. Courts have repeatedly held that expressions which have the tendency to provoke violence or disturb the social fabric cannot seek refuge under free speech guarantees.
The order also touched on the responsibility of citizens and community leaders to avoid rhetoric that could inflame passions. By emphasising sovereignty and integrity, the bench linked individual acts of incitement to wider national consequences, warning that tolerance of such slogans risks normalising extremist narratives.
Civil liberties commentators point out that the judgment does not criminalise belief or religious faith but targets calls to violence. The distinction is crucial, they say, because it preserves space for peaceful religious expression while drawing an unambiguous red line against coercion and bloodshed.
The court’s language was firm in asserting the exclusive authority of the State to investigate, prosecute and punish offences. Any attempt to bypass this framework, it said, strikes at the heart of constitutional governance. The slogan in question, by prescribing a violent outcome without trial, was described as incompatible with democratic values and the idea of justice administered through courts.