Background:

The case of Etvir Limbu vs. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 378, revolves around a Nepali citizen accused of trespassing into the Manauri Air Force Station in Prayagraj while intoxicated. Charged under Sections 3 and 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Section 461 IPC, Limbu’s situation prompted the Allahabad High Court to scrutinize the language used in warning signboards at defence installations.

Etvir Limbu, an illiterate Nepali citizen, was apprehended after allegedly entering the restricted Air Force Station premises in February 2024. The prosecution argued that Limbu’s actions warranted serious charges under the Official Secrets Act and the IPC, given the sensitive nature of the area he trespassed.

However, Limbu’s defence contended that his entry was not premeditated or malicious. They argued that his intoxicated state led to an unintentional breach of the Air Force Station’s perimeter. The defence highlighted Limbu’s lack of education and his lawful citizenship in Nepal as mitigating factors, asserting that no incriminating evidence was found in his possession.

Court’s Observation:

During the hearing, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav addressed the broader issue of the language used in warning signboards at defence installations. The judge noted that while security concerns are paramount, the phrasing of warnings like “dekhte hi goli maar di jayegi” could have adverse psychological effects on passersby, particularly children. Justice Yadav suggested that the Central Government should consider using “light words” to convey the same message without causing undue alarm.

The Central Government defended the use of stern warnings on signboards, explaining the necessity of stringent security measures to protect defence installations. They detailed the comprehensive security protocols in place, including physical barriers, security personnel, and clear, emphatic warning signs to deter unauthorized access. The government cited the increase in security breaches and the heightened threat environment following terrorist attacks at Pathankot and Uri as justification for their approach.

Despite acknowledging the rising instances of intrusions, the government maintained that strong warnings were essential to ensure the safety and integrity of defence facilities. They argued that such measures were critical to prevent potential security threats and unauthorized access to sensitive areas.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Yadav, while understanding the security imperatives, reiterated the need for a balance between effective deterrence and considerate communication. The judge opined that the use of excessively harsh language on signboards was not appropriate and suggested that the Central Government adopt a more measured tone.

In granting bail to Etvir Limbu, the Court emphasized the absence of malicious intent behind his actions. The judge took into account Limbu’s illiteracy, his lawful status as a Nepali citizen, and the lack of any incriminating evidence. Recognizing that Limbu’s intoxicated state had led to an inadvertent trespass, the Court decided to grant him bail, thereby providing relief while still acknowledging the need for strict security measures.

This judgement has significant implications for the approach to security communication at defence installations. The Court’s suggestion to use softer language on warning signboards underscores the importance of considering the psychological impact of such messages on the general public, particularly children. It highlights the need for a balanced approach that ensures security without causing undue distress or alarm.

The case also emphasizes the importance of considering individual circumstances in legal proceedings. The Court’s decision to grant bail to Etvir Limbu, based on his personal background and the lack of evidence against him, reflects a compassionate and context-aware approach to justice.