Invitation to Discuss Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification Does Not Promote Enmity: Sikkim HC [Read Judgment]

Gangtok: The Sikkim High Court has quashed an FIR, charge-sheet and sessions trial against three men over an invitation to a public consultation on the “Constitutional Legality of Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification”, holding that such an invitation does not attract Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while calling the use of the Sikkim Government’s official logo on it prima facie mischievous.

Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, in an oral judgment delivered on 06.11.2026, decided two petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Crl. M.C. No. 01 of 2026 by Bikram Rai alias Bikramadi Rai and Subash Mani Singh, and Crl. M.C. No. 07 of 2026 by Noel Sharma. They challenged FIR No. 80/2025 of Sadar Police Station, Gangtok, charge-sheet No. 183/SHO/SPS and Sessions Trial Case No. 10/2025.

The FIR of 06.06.2025 was lodged by the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister against persons linked to the Darjeeling-based “Gorkha Seva Sena”. It alleged that they used, without permission, the official logo and theme of the 50th Sikkim State Day celebrations, notified in 2024, on an invitation to an event at Kurseong on 15 June, and that this could mislead the public, provoke enmity between the people of Sikkim and Darjeeling and disrupt public order. The charge-sheet invoked Sections 152, 196(1), 336(4) and 61(2) BNS.

The petitioners’ Senior Counsel argued that the case fell within the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and that the invitation was protected by Article 19(1)(a). He relied on Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, which holds that written or spoken words under Section 196 must be judged by the standard of reasonable, strong-minded and courageous individuals. The Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that the prosecution had no material on Sections 152, 336(4) and 61(2), and said only Section 196 was attracted.

Applying Section 196, which covers words promoting enmity between groups on grounds such as religion, race, place of birth, residence or language, the court held that debate on the constitutional legality of the proposed unification should not provoke sentiments strong enough to attract the provision. It added that a contrary view may be countered by another, quoting the Supreme Court that views “must be countered by expressing another point of view,” even if many dislike them. An invitation to a consultation, by itself, would not attract Section 196.

On the logo, the court said the petitioners ought not to have used it without the Sikkim Government’s sanction and that it was prima facie “quite clearly, mischievous”, and might invite other consequences. But even that use would not bring the case within Section 196.

Finding it a fit case for Section 528, the court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and pending proceedings before the Sessions Judge, Special Division-I, Gangtok, directing that the petitioners shall not misuse others’ property in such a way. 

The State remains free to take appropriate action for any illegality in using the emblem. Both petitions and the pending application were disposed of.

Appearances:

For the Petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 01 of 2026: Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Tara Devi Chettri, Ms. Niyashi Rai and Ms. Sohitya Kala Limboo, Advocates.

For the Petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 07 of 2026: Mr. Abhinav Kant Jha, Advocate (through V.C.).

For the State: Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Case Title: Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim, Crl. M.C. No. 01 of 2026, with Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim, Crl. M.C. No. 07 of 2026

[Read Judgment]