Posters on a Mangaluru roadside wall called a Supreme Court judgment a denial of justice, 13 men booked, now Karnataka High Court has quashed the FIR

Criticising a Supreme Court judgment is not a crime unless the legal conditions for an offence are met, the Karnataka High Court has held. The court quashed an FIR against 13 men who put up posters in Mangaluru calling a Supreme Court verdict a denial of justice.

In an order dated October 15, 2026, Justice H P Sandesh ruled that the slogans did not promote enmity between groups or outrage religious feelings, as police had alleged. The bench said the posters only voiced disagreement with a judgment, TOI reported.

What Did The Karnataka High Court Say About Criticising A Court Judgment?

The court looked at what the posters actually said. They called the verdict a denial of justice and asked people to raise their voice for justice. Nothing more was found in them.


According to the order, “a voice is raised with regard to judgment of the Apex Court, that too, word used is only denial of justice and raise the voice for justice.” The court held that such words do not attract Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC.

What Was The Case?

The case began when posters were spotted on walls beside a road in the city. Police registered a case, and the complaint also referred to the Popular Front of India.

The 13 men were booked under Section 153A (promoting enmity), Section 295A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings) and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. They were also booked under Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act. The men then moved the High Court to set aside the FIR.

What Did Both Sides Argue In Court?

The lawyer for the men said the complaint did not show how the slogans amounted to an offence. He argued that Article 19 of the Constitution protects free speech, including the right to disagree with a judgment. He relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Javed Ahmad Hajam v State of Maharashtra, which deals with the right to disagree with decisions of public authorities. Other Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court rulings were also cited.

The state opposed the plea. It told the court that the posters were put up in a public place soon after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, and that the slogans could create disharmony in the country.

What Test Did The Court Apply To The Slogans?

Justice Sandesh examined the police complaint and the power of a High Court to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. He also referred to Javed Ahmad Hajam and Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v State of Andhra Pradesh.

The court said words must be judged by their general impact on a significant number of reasonable people, not by the reaction of a few. According to the order, “Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A IPC.” The court added that it was not possible to conclude the words would stir hatred between religious groups.

What Was The Final Order?

The court found this a fit case to use its power under Section 482. Justice Sandesh said, “it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings, as the same is dissent about the judgment and the same is not in the term of creating disharmony and only it is stated that justice is denied and raise voice and the same is within the scope of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The petition filed by the 13 men was allowed. The FIR under Sections 153A, 295A and 120B of the IPC, along with Section 3 of the Open Place Disfigurement Act, stands quashed.

(Inputs from TOI)