CURRENT AFFAIRS | 22 April 2026
CLAT GK + CRIMINAL LAW (IPC/BNS) & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta has pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government in Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v State of U.P., asking why Section 153B IPC (now Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) was not added to the FIR in a 2021 Noida case where a 62-year-old Muslim cleric was allegedly assaulted — his beard pulled, his skull cap removed, and religious slurs hurled — in the name of religion. The Court bluntly asked: “Why is the Investigating Officer playing hide-and-seek with the Court? Can you back out from 153B?” The UP Police conceded the provision would be added; the matter is listed for May 19, 2026.
For CLAT 2027, this case is a perfect vehicle to test three things at once — hate-speech jurisprudence, the IPC → BNS transition, and the Article 19(2) free-speech framework.
Statutory & Constitutional Framework
- Section 153A IPC / BNS § 196 — Promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, language, etc.
- Section 153B IPC / BNS § 197 — Imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration (the provision at the heart of the Sherwani case).
- Section 295A IPC / BNS § 299 — Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class.
- Section 505 IPC / BNS § 353 — Statements conducing to public mischief.
- Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of speech; restrictions only under Article 19(2) — public order, decency, morality, sovereignty, friendly relations, etc.
- Article 25 — Freedom of conscience and religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
- Article 21 — Protection of life and personal liberty, read with dignity (Common Cause, Puttaswamy).
Why This Matters for CLAT 2027
- BNS transition: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaced the IPC on 1 July 2024. Expect dual-numbering questions testing both old and new section numbers.
- Cognisable-offence principle: Lalita Kumari v State of UP (2014) mandates FIR registration where a cognisable offence is disclosed — and all attracted sections must be investigated. The Sherwani case is a live illustration.
- Hate-speech trilogy: Pravasi Bhalai (2014), Amish Devgan (2020) and Shaheen Abdullah (2022) form the three-case spine of modern SC hate-speech doctrine — memorise their exact propositions.
- Principle-application trap: Students confuse § 153B (national integration) with § 153A (promoting enmity). § 153B specifically targets imputations that assert a class cannot bear true allegiance to the Constitution — a narrower, sharper offence.
Landmark Cases at a Glance
| Case | Proposition |
|---|---|
| Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v UoI (2014) | SC declined to frame judicial guidelines on hate speech; referred to the Law Commission. |
| Tehseen S. Poonawalla v UoI (2018) | Mob-lynching guidelines — preventive, remedial, punitive measures for states. |
| Amish Devgan v UoI (2020) | Hate-speech test — speaker’s position, reach, intent, likely harm, context. |
| Shaheen Abdullah v UoI (2022) | State police directed to register hate-speech FIRs suo motu, without waiting for a complaint. |
| Lalita Kumari v State of UP (2014) | Mandatory FIR registration where information discloses a cognisable offence. |
| Ramji Lal Modi v State of UP (1957) | Upheld § 295A IPC; restriction valid under Art 19(2) on ground of public order. |
Mnemonic — "PATSL" (think "Patrol")
Pravasi Bhalai (2014) · Amish Devgan (2020) · Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) · Shaheen Abdullah (2022) · Lalita Kumari (2014 — FIR registration).
BNS numbers: § 196 (enmity) · § 197 (national integration, replacing 153B) · § 299 (religious feelings, replacing 295A).
Principle in Action
A classic CLAT principle-application might run: “Where a complainant’s version taken at face value discloses a cognisable offence, police must register an FIR and investigate all attracted provisions.” The fact pattern gives you the Sherwani allegations — assault plus religious slurs plus pulling of beard/skull cap. The correct application is that the conduct is legally flawed — Sections 153B and 295A are attracted and must be invoked. The SC’s direction in the case is a textbook application of Lalita Kumari.
Test Yourself: 10-Question CLAT Practice Quiz
Ten CLAT-style questions on this story — factual recall, constitutional articles, and principle-application reasoning. Tap an option to lock it in; explanations appear on submit.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
Source: Bar & Bench · LiveLaw · The Indian Express · Verdictum.in.
