Introduction:

In a noteworthy ruling, the Patna High Court, led by Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, dismissed a summons issued to Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Nityanand Rai, in connection with alleged provocative speech under Section 153 IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act. Rai had addressed a public rally on March 9, 2018, during the Araria Lok Sabha by‑poll, remarking that if the rival RJD candidate won, Araria might become a base for ISIS. Based on an FIR and allegations that this constituted hate speech, a Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance in April 2022. Rai challenged this, asserting his speech did not reference any protected class or target a religious community, and was improperly taken up. In its May 13 decision (made public June 17), the High Court set aside the cognizance order, holding there was no prima facie offence, and the order was mechanical and non‑speaking.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Rai):

Rai, represented by senior counsel Naresh Dikshit, contended:

• His remark was an expression of apprehension, not an incitement or targeted hostility.
• The speech did not mention religion, caste, community, or language—hence no grounds for Section 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot).
• ISIS is a militant group with no affiliation to any religion, so the statement could not have promoted communal hatred.
• The FIR was politically motivated, instigated by a local officer—not by the RJD candidate himself—and the cognizance was taken without applying judicial mind.

Arguments of the Respondent (State):

The prosecution relied on the FIR alleging violation of the Model Code of Conduct and promotion of enmity during an election. Through Section 153 IPC and Section 125 RPA, it maintained that Rai’s public speech could incite public disorder or hatred, warranting legal action. The State argued the CJM acted appropriately in taking cognizance based on the written information provided .

Court’s Analysis & Judgment:

• Justice Jha analyzed the key terms ‘malignantly’ and ‘wantonly’ in Section 153, noting no offence arises unless accompanied by an illegal act. He observed that:
• Rai’s statement was a conjecture—expressing concern about ISIS establishing a base—not a maligned or reckless provocation toward a riot.
• No protected category was targeted, and no hate speech was evident.
• ISIS, as a militant organization, does not represent a religion, and thus the speech does not threaten communal harmony.

Given the absence of prima facie allegations showing illegal intent or promotion of enmity, the Court found the cognizance order to be non‑speaking and mechanical. It quashed the summons and dismissed the proceedings, affirming Rai’s petition.

Legal Implications:

The judgment clarifies that under Section 153 IPC:

• Mere apprehensions of violence or illicit activity—without targeting protected classes—do not attract criminal liability.
• Courts must apply judicial scrutiny before entertaining charges under sections meant to curb communal hatred.
• Political speech, even alarmist in tone, receives greater protection unless crossing into hate speech.
• This decision strengthens the principle of free political expression, while reaffirming strict boundaries for hate-speech provisions.