The registration of a situation of insurrection versus 49 noticeable people at a police headquarters in Bihar’s Muzaffarpur for writing an open letter in July to the Head of state has actually triggered easy to understand outrage. There was absolutely nothing in the allure, which requests steps to quit lynching and also various other hate criminal offenses, specifically for religious beliefs, that also vaguely connoted an effort to advertise disaffection or any prejudice to national assimilation. In these polarised times, it is not unusual that an attorney took it upon himself to launch criminal proceedings versus the film-makers, musicians and writers such as Shyam Benegal, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Aparna Sen and also Ramachandra Guha for signing the open appeal on an issue of public worry. That a chief judicial magistrate had taken this vexatious problem on data and also directed the police to sign up an FIR is difficult. Magistrates undoubtedly have the power to buy an authorities investigation into cognisable offenses. And the High court has, in Lalita Kumari vs. Uttar Pradesh (2013 ), put down that enrollment of an FIR is obligatory if information received by the authorities reveals a cognisable offence, which in some instances, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted before the FIR is signed up. However, in this instance, it is rather impressive just how the court or the cops might end that the components were anarchistic or a sign of any type of various other offence.While private complaints targeting somebodies are not unusual, courts should not, without enough reason, indulge the motivated outrage of litigious plaintiffs. Superior courts do interfere to quell efforts by those claiming to be angered by some comment or public statements, however it is time the reduced judiciary stopped acting reflexively on frivolous complaints. Definitely, the court should have understood the continuous national discussion on preserving insurrection as an offence under the IPC’s Area 124A and also growing demand for its abrogation. The prevalent disregard for public opinion against the indiscriminate use the insurrection provision is disappointing enough. It is even worse if the magistracy disregards Supreme Court judgments that state sedition is attracted just if there is incitement to physical violence, and does not put on statements which contain mere point of views, howsoever strong they might be. It is unfortunate that the court did not see that the complaint was nothing even more than a political counterblast to what the complainant saw as criticism of the Head of state. One can only really hope that the Patna High Court puts an end to this farcical attempt to use the judiciary for political ends, and also examine just how its managerial powers can be utilized to sensitise the magistracy to the constitutional provisions protecting free speech.