Sikkim HC Quashes Case Over Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification Consultation, Says Invitation Did Not Promote Enmity Despite State Logo

Gorkha Seva Sena issued an invitation to a public consultation on the “Constitutional Legality of Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification,” using the Government of Sikkim’s 50th Statehood logo.

The Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister lodged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 152, 196 and 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and referring also to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.

The police later filed a charge-sheet against the three petitioners under Sections 152, 196(1), 336(4) and 61(2) BNS.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of the FIR, charge-sheet and pending Sessions Trial.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; the illustrative categories for quashing in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, include cases where the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence.

Under State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561, investigation into a cognizable offence requires an FIR that prima facie discloses such an offence.

Section 196 BNS criminalises, among other conduct, promoting or attempting to promote disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between specified groups, or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, (2026) 1 SCC 721, the Supreme Court stressed that alleged words must be assessed in context and by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded individuals; expression that does not promote the prohibited consequences does not attract Section 196.

The judgment also recognised the protection of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), subject to Article 19(2).

The Court treated the invitation as a call for public participation in a constitutional discussion, not as language promoting enmity or disharmony between groups.

The subject’s potential controversy, without more, did not bring the invitation within Section 196 BNS; opposing views could be answered through public debate.

The Court considered the unauthorised use of the official logo “mischievous” and potentially actionable, but held that it did not establish the elements of Section 196.

It also noted the prosecution’s concession that the material did not support the charges under Sections 152, 336(4) and 61(2) BNS.

It allowed both petitions and quashed FIR No. 80 of 2025, charge-sheet No. 183/SHO/SPS and the pending Sessions Trial proceedings.

The State remained free to take appropriate action concerning the alleged unauthorised use of the emblem; the petitioners were also directed not to misuse others’ property or represent it as their own.