‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ Slogan Endangers India’s Sovereignty: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that raising the slogan “sar tan se juda” poses a serious threat to India’s sovereignty and directly challenges the authority of Indian law. The Court held that such slogans promote violence, encourage rebellion, and are punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that slogans demanding beheading for alleged disrespect to the Prophet openly defy India’s constitutional and legal framework, which is based on democratic values and the rule of law. The Court noted that declaring a death sentence through slogans is completely contrary to punishments prescribed under Indian law.
The High Court clarified that while all religions have slogans or proclamations meant to express devotion, respect, or faith, these expressions become illegal when they are used to threaten, intimidate, or provoke violence against others. Devotional slogans like “Allahu Akbar,” “Jo Bole So Nihal,” “Jai Shri Ram,” or “Har Har Mahadev” are lawful unless deliberately misused to create fear or hatred.
The Court further pointed out that the controversial slogan has no basis in the Quran or Islamic religious texts. It observed that many people raise the slogan without understanding its meaning or legal consequences, even though it promotes violence and lawlessness.
Referring to history, the Court traced the emergence of strict blasphemy laws during British rule and later developments in Pakistan, where death penalty provisions were introduced for blasphemy. The slogan, the Court noted, gained prominence during protests in Pakistan in 2011 and later spread to other countries, including India, where it has been misused to intimidate people and challenge state authority.
The High Court also emphasised that Prophet Mohammad showed compassion and forgiveness even when he was disrespected. According to the Court, demanding beheading in his name goes against his teachings and values.
These observations were made while hearing a bail plea related to violence in Bareilly in September. The incident followed a protest call by Maulana Taukir Raza, during which the slogan was allegedly raised. Violent clashes occurred, leading to injuries to police personnel and damage to public and private property.
The Court found sufficient evidence that the accused was part of an unlawful assembly that raised objectionable slogans and engaged in violence. As a result, the bail plea was rejected.
