The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik while quashing an FIR pertaining to a tweet with alleged communal shades to it remarked that merely because the petitioner’s point of view seems extreme, the same does not amount to making a hate speech. (Sunaina Holey vs State of Maharashtra)
The bench remarked to prove whether a tweet is blasphemous or not, it must be judged from the standpoint of a strong-minded, prudent person.
Facts of the case
An FIR was registered against the petitioner for a tweet on Twitter, a popular social media platform, on the ground that incited violence and created hatred and enmity between Hindus and Muslims. The petitioner in the aforesaid tweet shared a video wherein a member of the crowd (identified as a Muslim) was seen to be blaming the Prime Minister of India for the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak, to which the petitioner took a stand for the Prime Minister and questioned the irresponsibility of the tweet by comments. Holey was booked u/s 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion) of the IPC.
The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the FIR
Contention of the parties
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that; when the tweet is considered in its entirety, it would clearly reveal that there was no intention in spreading hate or creating enmity between the Hindu and Muslim community. The tweet merely questioned the contents of the video and commented on the rationality of the tweet.
The counsel for the petitioner, contended that the ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) IPC are not made out. He further contended that she is not the author of the video and merely referred to it.
According to the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the tweet is offensive against people of the Muslim faith and the tweet seemed to have deliberately distorted facts by amplifying the weakened voice of a single individual who blamed the PM of India for the pandemic.
Court's Observation and judgment
The Court from a bare reading of the contents of the tweet noted that neither any community nor any religion was named. Further, nothing substantial has been brought on record by the prosecution to hold that because of the said tweet, hatred or enmity was created between two communities.
The bench stated, “If the test of a strong or a prudent person judging the contents of the said tweet is applied, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said tweet created hatred or enmity between the two groups of communities.”
The High Court held that in the above case, the petitioner was unhappy with the viewpoint voiced out in the video and thus reposted the video in order to criticize it. The intention of the accused to create hatred between the Hindu and Muslim community must be judged on the basis of words used by the accused along with surrounding circumstances. Further, it must be judged on the basis of what reasonable and strong-minded persons will think of the statement, and not on the basis of the views of hypersensitive persons who scent danger in every hostile point of view.
The Bench held that the tweet in question seems to be a hostile point of view, if judged from the point of reasonable and strong minded person point of view.
The Bench hence quashed the order and remarked, “The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A of IPC and prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused.”
Read Judgment;
SOURCE ; .latestlaws.com
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments