Mahammed Hanif and others vs State of Karnataka and another

Updates

1. News21 Oct 2026

   Posters Calling SC Judgment "Denial Of Justice" Is Protected Dissent; Not Offences U/S 153A Or 295A IPC: Karnataka High Court

   The Court held that the possibility of a few individuals developing hatred or ill will was insufficient; the applicable test was the general impact of the expression on a significant number of reasonable people.

   Explanation in simple terms

   What:

   The court ruled that putting up posters criticizing a Supreme Court judgment is a form of protected free speech.

   Who:

   Mahammed Hanif and others are the petitioners, the State of Karnataka is the opposing party, and the Karnataka High Court is the decision-maker.

   When:

   Reported on 21 Oct 2026.

   Where:

   Karnataka High Court, Karnataka.

   Why:

   The court decided that expressing disagreement with a court order is not a crime meant to incite hatred.

   What it means:

   The court dismissed the charges under sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which relate to promoting enmity and insulting religious feelings.

   Verdictum
2. Judgment20 Oct 2026

   Why Karnataka HC quashed FIR over posters, ruled dissent against SC judgement isn’t promoting enmity

   Petitioners faced allegations of promoting enmity between groups, outraging religious feelings & criminal conspiracy. They were also booked under law on disfigurement of public places.

   Explanation in simple terms

   What:

   The High Court cancelled a police investigation into people who put up posters.

   Who:

   Mahammed Hanif and others are the accused, the State of Karnataka and another are the state authorities, and the Karnataka High Court is the judicial body.

   When:

   Reported on 20 Oct 2026.

   Where:

   Karnataka High Court, Karnataka.

   Why:

   The court ruled that disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision does not count as inciting hostility.

   What it means:

   The legal case against the individuals is stopped because the court dismissed the initial police complaint.

   The Print