Allahabad High Court Rules Against Slogan Inciting Violence

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saza, sar tan se juda” poses a significant threat to India's legal authority and integrity. This ruling came while denying bail to an individual involved in violent protests in Bareilly. The court emphasized that such slogans incite armed rebellion and contradict Islamic teachings. The decision highlights the balance between freedom of speech and the need for reasonable restrictions to maintain public order. The case underscores the ongoing tensions surrounding religious expressions and their implications for law and order in India.

By Narendra Chaudhary Dec 19, 2025, 12:33 IST

Court's Stance on Controversial Slogan

On Wednesday, the Allahabad High Court stated that the chant “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saza, sar tan se juda” poses a direct challenge to legal authority and the integrity of India.

This slogan translates to “the only punishment for disrespecting the prophet is beheading.”

A bench led by Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this remark while rejecting bail for an individual linked to the violence that occurred in Bareilly last September.

The court indicated that this slogan incites individuals towards “armed rebellion” and is punishable under section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, which addresses actions threatening India's sovereignty and unity.

Furthermore, the single-judge bench noted that the slogan contradicts fundamental Islamic principles, asserting that it is not found in the Quran or other Islamic texts.

The court also remarked that shouting religious slogans like “‘nara-e-takbir’ followed by ‘Allahu Akbar’”, “Jo bole so nihaal, Sat Sri Akal”, “Jai Shree Ram”, or “Har Har Mahadev” is not considered an offense unless used maliciously to intimidate individuals of other faiths.

The prosecution claimed that on September 26, two Muslim leaders allegedly incited a crowd to gather at a college to protest against perceived injustices and false accusations against Muslim youth.

Despite existing prohibitory orders against gatherings of more than five people, over 500 individuals reportedly assembled, chanting slogans against the government and calling for beheading, according to the prosecution.

A clash ensued when police attempted to intervene, as per the prosecution's account.

While denying bail to one of the accused, the court emphasized that although the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, this right is subject to reasonable limitations.

The court stated that chanting a slogan advocating beheading is “not only contrary to constitutional principles but also a challenge to the lawful authority of the Indian legal system.”

The bench concluded that there was ample evidence indicating that the bail applicant was part of an unlawful assembly that not only raised provocative slogans against the Indian legal system but also inflicted injuries on police officers and caused damage to both public and private property, constituting an offense against the state, leading to his arrest at the scene.