- JUDEGMENT SUMMARY: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and Others
- DATE OF JUDGEMENT: December 7, 2020
- JUDGES: Justices A. M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna
- PARTIES: Amish Devgan (Petitioners)
SUBJECT
The judgment deals with a writ petition filed by Journalist Amish Devgan seeking quashing of FIRs lodged against him for his remarks against Sufi Saint Moinnuddin Chisthi. The question before the court was that whether the First Information Reports should be quashed.
AN OVERVIEW
1. On 15th June 2020, the petitioner, who is a journalist, has hosted a debate on The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
2. Post the telecast, seven FIRs concerning the episode were filed and registered against the petitioner in the States of Rajasthan, Telangana, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh for the petitioner has called Khwaja Muinuddin chishti (a revered Sufi saint) as akraantak, lootera etcetera.
3. The petitioner, as per the writ petition, claims that post the telecast he was abused and given death threats on his phone and social media platforms.
4. Fearing for his life and limb, he had filed FIR No. 539 of 2020 dated 20th June, 2020 at P.S. Sector-20, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and submitted the links to the threats received through social media platforms.
5. On 22nd June, 2020, the present writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with an application for interim relief and quashing of the FIRs.
6. SC rejected the petition but granted interim protection against arrest continent to the Petitioner’s support in the investigation.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—
(1) Whoever -
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, 2[or] 2[(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,] shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Offence committed in place of worship, etc.
(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.—
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 273 [citizens of India], 274 [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.
Section 505(2):Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or illwill between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66F:Punishment for Cyber Terrorism -
(1) Whoever,-
(A) With intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by –
(i) Denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorised to access computer resource; or
(ii) Attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access; or
(iii) Introducing or causing to introduce any Computer Contaminant.
And by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70, or
(B) Knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.
(2) Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life.
ISSUES
The following are the major issues framed by the Supreme Court-
- Whether the FIRs should be quashed.
- What constitutes hate speech?
- What are the ingredients of Section 153A of IPC?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. The Supreme Court’s two-judge bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, in the judgment authored by the latter, dealt with the question of what constitutes hate speech rather elaborately. Such a lengthy examination of the merits of the case at the pre-trial stage by the apex court is hard to defend, especially when the bench makes it clear that it should not influence either the investigation or the trial. Yet, the bench makes a convincing case for denying Devgan’s plea for quashing of the FIRs filed against him for his alleged derogatory remarks against Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti.
2. The bench does so despite its agreement with the recent decision rendered by another two-judge bench of the court in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami. In Goswami’s case, the court, in almost identical circumstances, had refused to examine the question whether the proceedings arising out of the FIR filed against the petitioner should be quashed under Article 32 of the constitution on the ground that he must be relegated to pursue equally efficacious remedies under the CrPC before the high court.
3. The bench has tried to segregate normal law and order issues from deliberate and malicious intent to disturb public tranquility. The court has rightly held that for an act to constitute an offence under Section 153A and Section 295A of IPC, deliberate malicious intent is necessary.
4. The apex court effectively emphasized that persons of influence, keeping in view their reach, impact and authority they yield on general public or the specific class to which they belong, owe a duty and have to be more responsible. SC casted more duty on influential people of acting wisely and with caution in public, especially with regard to their acts and statements that are not personal but rather reflexive of general topics.
5. The Court has indeed reasonably observed that in a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and, in fact, repudiates the right to equality as enshrined in the Constitution as a Fundamental Right. The judgment provides an elaborate and extensive discussion on what constitutes hate speech and when does the right to free speech cross boundaries in order to constitute hate speech.
CONCLUSION
The approach adopted by the Supreme Court of India is fair and thoughtful. The Court has rightly declined and rejected the Prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the FIRs but have granted interim protection to the petitioner against arrest subject to his joining and cooperating in investigation till completion of the investigation in terms of the directions in judgment. The SC has asked the concerned states to examine the threat perception of the petitioner and family members and takeappropriate steps as may be necessary.Thereby, the apex court has taken care of both the legal procedures and rights of accused setting an example for the judiciary to keep up with.
