Sikkim High Court Quashes FIR Against Gorkha Sewa Sena on Darjeeling-Sikkim Issue

GANGTOK:12th Nov:  The Sikkim High Court has ruled that inviting people to participate in a public discussion on the constitutional legality of Darjeeling-Sikkim unification does not, by itself, amount to promoting enmity between different communities, and has quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against members of Gorkha Seva Sena.

Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, while allowing two petitions filed by Noel Sharma of Soreng District of Sikkim and Bikram Rai alias Bikramadi Rai of Darjeeling & Subash Mani Singh of Kalimpong District of West Bengal jointly under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observed that in a democratic society, differing opinions and public discussions on constitutional issues cannot be treated as criminal offences merely because they may be controversial or opposed by certain sections of society.

The case originated from an invitation issued by Gorkha Seva Sena for a programme titled ’50th Sikkim State Day Celebration and Constitutional Consultation’, scheduled to be held on June 15, 2025, at Town Hall, Naya Bazar, Kurseong, West Bengal.The  GSS proposed  public discussion on Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification’s Constitutional Legality.

However, an FIR was registered on June 6, 2025, following a complaint by the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Sikkim. The complaint alleged that the organisers had unauthorisedly used the Sikkim Government’s official logo and theme, potentially creating an impression that the State Government endorsed the programme.

It was also alleged that the invitation could promote enmity between the people of Sikkim and Darjeeling and disturb public order.

The FIR invoked Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with promoting enmity between different groups, along with other provisions. A chargesheet was subsequently filed against the organisers.

Examining the allegations, the High Court held that an invitation to participate in a public consultation on a constitutional question could not, on its own, attract the offence of promoting enmity under Section 196 BNS.

Emphasising the importance of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the court observed that in a healthy democracy, views and opinions must be countered through contrary views, even if they are disliked by many.

The court further observed that a contrary viewpoint, if clearer, better reasoned and legally sound, could prove more persuasive than the opinion it seeks to challenge.

However, the court did not approve the organisers’ unauthorised use of the Sikkim Government’s official logo, describing the act as prima facie mischievous. It clarified that the State Government remained at liberty to take appropriate action regarding the alleged improper use of its official emblem.

Allowing the petitions, the High Court quashed FIR No. 80 of 2025, Chargesheet No. 183/SHO/SPS and all consequential criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Gangtok.

The ruling clarifies that discussing the constitutional and legal dimensions of a proposed Darjeeling-Sikkim unification cannot automatically be equated with promoting communal or regional enmity.

The judgment, however, does not endorse or adjudicate upon the merits, feasibility or legality of the proposed unification itself. It addresses the criminal liability arising from the public invitation and the allegations made in the FIR.