KANHAIYA KUMAR V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

INTRODUCTION

Kanhaiya Kumar was the President of the student’s union in Jawaharlal Nehru University. He
was charged with sedition and arrested by the Delhi Police. Since sedition is a non-bailable
offence, he had to spend days in jail and was finally released when his bail was allowed.

FACTS

On Feb 9th of 2019, few students of Jawaharlal University decided to conduct a programme at the
Sabarmati Dhaba of the campus. The title of the programme was “Poetry Reading- The Country
Without Post office”. The students took the permission of the University and the permission was
granted without any complications as the University thought that the programme is related to
poetry reading and there is nothing objectionable about it. The University allowed the students to
carry on the programme for two and a half hour i.e. from 5 to 7:30 pm. But the posters released
by the students related to this programme was a shock to the JNU administration. The posters
clearly mentioned the title “ Against the judicial killing of Maqbool Bhatt and Afzal Guru”. The
Administration did not want the students to involve in such anti-national activities and thus the
permission was cancelled. The same was conveyed to the organizers of the programme as well as
the security staff of the campus.

The organizers of the programme decided to carry on the programme despite the disapproval of
the administration. As a result, during the programme, a heated argument took place between
two group of students. Kanhaiya Kumar was the President of the Student council at that time and
he also took part in the programme.

On February 10, a video clip of the programme went viral and the same was shown on the ZEE
news. Students were seen raising anti-national slogans. The Delhi Police obtained the video and
arrested Kanhaiya Kumar under Indian Penal Code.

On February 18, Kanhaiya Kumar approached the Supreme Court for bail. The court passed the
matter to the High Court to consider the petition of bail filed by the accused.

ISSUES RAISED
 1. The main issue before the court was whether Kanhaiya Kumar should be released on bail
despite the number of serious charges against him?
2. Whether he should be tried for sedition?
3. Whether the speech given by Kanhaiya Kumar is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution?

ARGUMENTS

PETITIONER

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate, Mr. Kapil Sibbal

- The petitioner did not have any role in the programme held. It was the other students who
took part in the programme without the permission of the Administration. The petitioner
was aware that the students were adamant on carrying the programmes and therefore he
did not want to be a part of the event and decided to stay away.
- The report was filed against the petitioner after the Zee news telecasted a video of
students raising anti-national slogans and it was also shown that slogans of Pakistan
Zindabad were also raised. But it is noted that the slogan of Pakistan Zindabad can
nowhere be found in the list of slogans filed by the State.
- The petitioner is the President of the University and thus has an important role to play.
He is there to present the demands of the students before the Administration and manage
affairs affecting the students. When the petitioner came to know that heated conversation
is taking place between two groups of people then he went there to bring the situation
under control. It was his duty to do so as he is the representative of the students.
- The petitioner has already been brought in the police custody thrice and thus there is no
need to any more investigation. No concrete evidence has been found against the
petitioner and further investigation would only cause inconvenience to the petitioner who
is innocent. The petitioner has not played any role in this event and thus he should be
granted bail till the proceedings of this case is taking place.
- The signature of the petitioner was not on the application form seeking permission from
the authorities for the occurrence of such program. Thus, it is clear that he was not
involved in the occurrence of this event. He had no interest in conducting such program
 otherwise he would have given his signature on the application form. The petitioner is
innocent and should be absolved of all the charges.

RESPONDENT

The respondent is represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta and Mr. Rahul Mehra.

- There were a number of witnesses present while the event was taking place. Their
statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their
statements indicate that the petitioner did not go there to settle the dispute arising
between two parties but was the one playing active role in the event. It is also noticed that
when he came to know that the administration has cancelled the permission for
conducting the programme then he was very disappointed. Despite knowing about the
decision of the authorities, he went on conducting the programme.
- The petitioner’s signature was not present on the application asking the Administration
the permission to carry on the programme. This fact does not indicate that the petitioner
did not play any role in the event. The video clips released clearly show that he was
involved in the event and raised anti-national slogans.
- The investigation cannot be stopped just because the petitioner has been subject to police
custody thrice. Investigation is yet to take place on some important aspects to determine
the people involved in the act. The investigation will help in determining the acts done by
the petitioner and other students beside raising anti-national slogans. It will help in
determining the charges against the petitioner and others. Whether they should be
charged only for sedition or there are more acts done by them which is prohibited by law?
The answer to his question would be answered only after the completion of the
investigation.

JUDGMENT

The court referred to the decision given by the court in Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
Rajesh Ranjan v. Pappu Yadav and Another. 1 In this court discussed the concept of granting bail
in non-bailable offences. The court held that bail can be granted in non-bailable offences after

1
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan v. Pappu Yadav and Another (2004) 7 SCC 528
looking at the facts of the cases and the statement of the witnesses. The order granting bail to the
person should also mention the reason given by the court for doing so.2

In the present case, the court decided to grant interim bail to the petitioner for a period of six
months. The petitioner was asked to submit a bail bond of Rs 10,000. The court took into
account the financial position of his family. His mother was the sole earning member in his
family and was not earning much as she was an Anganwadi worker. The reason for granting bail
to the petitioner was that the court want to adopt a liberal approach so that he is not separated
from the mainstream society. He was also required to submit an undertaking that he would not
engage in any activity that might come under the ambit of anti-national. The court also asked
him to stop any activities from happening in the college that might be anti-national. As a leader
of the students, he is responsible to administer their activities and make sure no such thing take
place that might disturb the harmony of the campus.

While discussing the question of sedition, the court looked at Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of
Gujarat and Ors.3 In this case, the court held that if a person says anything and the listeners are
bring motivated to do violence then such speech would come under sedition under Section 124-A
of the Indian Penal Code.4 The court did not tell whether the petitioner’s speech would be
considered as sedition or not. The court said that it would give its verdict after the completion of
the investigation.

The court also discussed the freedom of speech and expression mentioned under Article 19(1)(a)
of our Constitution. The court took the views given in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. 5 In this
case, the court said that when someone uses his freedom of speech and expression which results
in people behaving unlawfully and such freedom also affects the sovereignty and integrity of the
nation and such freedom can be curtailed. 6 Article 19(2) of our constitution would come into
picture and such freedom can be taken away from a person.

ANALYSIS AND SUGGESTION

2
Id.
3
Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors 2016 (1) RCR (criminal) 542
4
Id.
5
Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
6
Id.
The aim of our Criminal Law is reformation. Anti-national activites should be taken very
seriously and those getting involved in such type of activities should be punished. Our Indian
Army risks its life for our safety. It would be very shameful if people start raising slogans in
favour of Terrorist like Afzal Guru who attacked the Parliament and Maqbool Bhatt. The
students of the country are the future of our country and they should not do things that can affect
the sovereignty and integrity of our nation.

Freedom of speech and expression is available to the citizens of the country so that they can
express their views and opinions but often this freedom is misused by people and therefore this
freedom is subject to restriction under Article 19(2). Strict actions should be taken against the
person misusing his freedom to spread hatred and violence.

The event which took place is highly objectionable and unacceptable. The slogans raised by the
students and the poster made by them are sufficient evidence to show that the act done by them
was sedition. The slogans raised by the students of JNU cannot be said to protected under the
freedom of speech and expression. The citizen of the country need to maintain certain standard
of decorum. The faculty of the University should guide the students to the right path and make
sure that they do not involve themselves in such anti-national activities.