KKN Gurugram Desk | In a significant legal development, the Patna High Court has quashed the lower court proceedings against Union Minister of State for Home Affairs and former Bihar BJP state president Nityanand Rai. The decision, delivered by Justice Chandrashekhar Jha, provides major relief to the senior BJP leader who was facing charges related to an alleged hate speech made in 2018.

The court passed the order while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Nityanand Rai, challenging the Araria lower court’s directive to summon him in a case related to promoting communal enmity through a public speech.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from a speech delivered by Nityanand Rai on March 9, 2018, while he was serving as the BJP’s Bihar state president. The speech was delivered during a political gathering in Narpatganj block of Araria district, ahead of the Lok Sabha by-elections.

Soon after, local administrative officials reported the matter, alleging that the speech contained elements likely to promote communal disharmony. A case was registered at the Narpatganj police station, and an investigation was launched under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to promoting enmity between different groups.

 Lower Court’s Action and Summoning Order

Following the submission of a chargesheet by the police on October 31, 2021, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Araria took cognizance of the case on April 13, 2022. The court directed the station house officer (SHO) to issue a summon to Nityanand Rai to appear before the court.

This order became the subject of the revision petition filed by Rai’s legal team in the Patna High Court, seeking dismissal of the lower court’s direction.

 Defense Argument: No Communal Intent in Speech

During the High Court hearing, Senior Advocate Naresh Dixit, appearing on behalf of Nityanand Rai, argued that the statutory provisions invoked in the case did not apply to the context of the speech.

Dixit clarified that Rai did not target any community or religious group in his speech. Instead, his remarks referred to a known international terrorist, with the intent of emphasizing national security concerns. The defense maintained that the speech had been misinterpreted and that there was no prima facie evidence to justify proceedings under Section 153A of the IPC (which relates to promoting enmity between groups).

 High Court’s Observations and Verdict

After reviewing the facts, the charge sheet, and legal arguments presented, Justice Chandrashekhar Jha concluded that the trial court had erred in taking cognizance of the case without proper legal justification.

The High Court held that:

• The speech, in context, did not amount to inciting communal hatred

• The sections of the law invoked were not applicable to the circumstances of the speech

• The intent behind the speech was not criminal but political

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the entire lower court proceeding, bringing an end to the legal uncertainty that had hovered over the Union Minister for several years.

Political Reactions and Implications

The verdict is being seen as a major political and legal relief for Nityanand Rai, who is currently serving in the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and is a key BJP figure in Bihar.

Reacting to the judgment, BJP leaders welcomed the court’s decision, stating that Rai has always been a law-abiding public servant committed to national unity and integrity.

A senior BJP spokesperson from Bihar said:

“This case was politically motivated from the beginning. The High Court’s verdict vindicates our stand that the allegations were baseless and aimed at defaming a respected leader.”

However, opposition parties have raised concerns over the speed of legal relief provided to political leaders, questioning whether the judiciary is equally accessible to common citizens facing legal trials.

What the Law Says: Understanding Section 153A IPC

Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

To invoke Section 153A successfully, the prosecution must establish:

• Deliberate intent to cause disharmony or hatred

• The use of language or symbols that provoke public mischief

• Direct targeting of specific communities or groups

In this case, the High Court concluded that none of these conditions were met.

Timeline of Events

The Patna High Court’s verdict in favor of Union Minister Nityanand Rai marks a pivotal moment in a case that had lingered for over seven years. The judgment reaffirms the importance of legal due process and contextual interpretation of political speech in a democracy.

As political discourse in India becomes increasingly scrutinized, this case serves as a legal precedent highlighting that not every controversial statement qualifies as hate speech under criminal law. However, it also raises important questions about accountability, political rhetoric, and the balance between free speech and public harmony.