JNU Files Complaint Over Slogans Against PM, Home Minister
JNU files police complaint over slogans against PM Modi and Amit Shah.
Photo by Roland Kwok
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) filed a police complaint on 06 January 2026, regarding “objectionable and provocative” slogans raised against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah during a protest on Monday night. The JNU administration has identified several students, including JNUSU president Aditi Mishra, as participants and promised “strictest action”.
The university described the acts as “deliberate” and “repeated”, and as having the potential to “seriously disrupt public order, campus harmony, and security”. Ministers in Delhi and at the Centre condemned the slogans.
Key Facts
JNU: Filed police complaint over slogans
Slogans: Against PM Modi and Amit Shah
JNUSU president: Aditi Mishra identified as participant
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity - Fundamental Rights, Constitutional Provisions, Judicial Interpretations
GS Paper II: Governance - Role of Civil Society, Public Order
Potential Question Types: Statement-based, Analytical, Critical Analysis
Visual Insights
Freedom of Speech and Public Order: Key Events
Timeline of events related to freedom of speech, public order, and related legal challenges in India, culminating in the JNU incident.
The debate surrounding freedom of speech and its limitations in India has a long and complex history, shaped by constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and evolving social norms. The JNU incident is the latest manifestation of this ongoing tension.
- 2017Supreme Court upholds individual's right to privacy as a fundamental right, impacting data protection and free speech debates.
- 2018Section 66A of the IT Act struck down by the Supreme Court, citing violation of freedom of speech.
- 2019Debate intensifies on the use of sedition law (Section 124A IPC) to curb dissent.
- 2020Government bans several mobile apps citing national security concerns, raising questions about freedom of expression online.
- 2021Farmers' protests and related internet shutdowns spark controversy over the balance between public order and freedom of information.
- 2022Supreme Court directs states and the Centre to refrain from registering FIRs under the scrapped Section 66A of the IT Act.
- 2023Law Commission recommends retaining sedition law but suggests amendments to prevent its misuse.
- 2024Government introduces new regulations for social media intermediaries, aiming to regulate content and address misinformation.
- 2025Supreme Court hears petitions challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the IT Act related to online content regulation.
- 2026JNU files complaint over slogans against PM and Home Minister, reigniting debate on freedom of speech vs. public order.
More Information
Background
The concept of free speech and its limitations in India has deep historical roots, intertwined with the struggle for independence and the drafting of the Constitution. Colonial-era laws like the Sedition Act of 1870 were used to suppress dissent against British rule. After independence, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and expression, but Article 19(2) imposed 'reasonable restrictions' on this right, including those related to public order, decency, and morality.
Landmark cases like *Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras* (1950) and *Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar* (1962) have shaped the interpretation of these restrictions.
The debate over the balance between free speech and public order continues to evolve, influenced by changing social and political contexts.
Latest Developments
In recent years, there has been increasing scrutiny of the application of sedition laws and other legal provisions related to speech, particularly in the context of online expression and social media. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for a narrow interpretation of sedition laws to prevent their misuse. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, have also raised concerns about potential restrictions on online speech.
The ongoing debate centers on how to balance national security concerns with the protection of fundamental rights, especially in an increasingly digital and polarized society. Future developments are likely to involve further judicial interpretations and legislative reforms aimed at clarifying the scope and limits of free speech in India.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding Article 19 of the Indian Constitution: 1. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. 2. Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech in the interest of public order, decency, or morality. 3. The term 'reasonable restrictions' has been explicitly defined in the Constitution. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statements 1 and 2 are correct. The term 'reasonable restrictions' is not explicitly defined in the Constitution but has been interpreted by the judiciary through various judgments.
2. In the context of freedom of speech and expression in India, which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the Sedition Law (Section 124A of the IPC)?
- A.It punishes acts that bring into hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India.
- B.The Supreme Court has upheld its constitutional validity while emphasizing the need for a narrow interpretation.
- C.It requires proof of incitement to violence for a conviction to be upheld.
- D.Criticism of government policies, without inciting violence, is considered sedition under this law.
Show Answer
Answer: D
Criticism of government policies, without inciting violence, is not considered sedition. The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for incitement to violence for a conviction under Section 124A.
3. Which of the following committees/commissions is/are associated with recommendations on police reforms in India? 1. Ribeiro Committee 2. Padmanabhaiah Committee 3. Prakash Singh Committee Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1 only
- B.1 and 2 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
All the mentioned committees (Ribeiro Committee, Padmanabhaiah Committee, and Prakash Singh Committee) are associated with recommendations on police reforms in India.