The court, headed by single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna, granted relief to five people who had been charged with promoting enmity between different groups and indulging in actions which are prejudicial to the harmony between different groupsThis case took its inception from an incident wherein the respondents were reportedly participating in a public rally where they were shouting the slogan Bharat Mata Ki Jai. The respondents were arrested for the offense of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, or language under Section 153A of the IPC and for making statements likely to incite public disorder or violence under Section 505 of the IPC. The authorities argued, incited divisions and prejudiced the maintenance of harmony between communities. The petitioners, however, argued that in uttering Bharat Mata Ki Jai, they were merely exercising their patriotism and national pride for the country and did not mean to convey enmity and hatred. They further argued that such slogans invoked have historic and cultural connotations which find association with India's freedom movement and national integration rather than a divisive ideal. His judgment had the justice dwelling on the ground that hate speech must be distinguished from expressions of patriotism. He pointed out that slogans like Bharat Mata Ki Jai are a symbolic salute to the nation, an expression of national pride, and cannot be equated with speech which promotes hatred or enmity amongst different groups. It further noted that mere chanting of a patriotic slogan did not come within the purview of Section 153A. This was the crucial observation that the judge pointed out. For the definition of hate speech to be available, there must exist a deliberate intention to create enmity or hostility between groups. No evidence was presented indicating that the slogan caused malice or hate. In the course of permitting relief for the five accused persons, Justice Nagaprasanna touched upon the need to defend freedom of speech, especially with regard to expressions of national pride. He forewarned how characterizing such expression as hate speech harbored dangerous implications for democratic discourse and individual freedoms..