CRUX: PATRICIA MUKHIM vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA - free speech of citizen cannot be stifled by implementing them in criminal cases.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 25th March 2021
BENCH: HON'BLE JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO, HON'BLE JUSTICE S.R. BHAT
PARTIES
- Appellant - PATRICIA MUKHIM
- Respondents - THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA
COUNSEL: Prasanna S. (For petitioner)
SUMMARY: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Patricia Mukhim saying free speech Can't Be Stifled by Criminal Cases
ISSUE: Whether the Facebook post was intentionally made for encouraging class/community hatred and has the predisposition to provoke animosity between two communities.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 41 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sections 153 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 500 of the Indian penal code, 1860
Section 505 (1) (c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
OVERVIEW
1. The appeal is filed against the rejection of an application filed by the petitioner under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the FIR case number 72 (7) 2020 dated on 6th July 2020 which was registered under section 153A, 500 and 505 (1)(C) of the Indian penal code 1860.
2. A press release was issued by the Assistant Inspector General of police on 4th July 2020 in which there was mentioned an incident on the day prior. The incident it led to registration of a crime at Laban police station under section 326, 307, 506, and 34 of IPC. it was reported that about 25 unidentified boys had assaulted young boys playing basketball all with iron rods and sticks. Six of them sustained serious injuries and were rushed to the hospital for medical assistance. Warning was given that nobody sale breach communal peace and harmony.
3. On the same day the appellant uploaded a post on Facebook which read as follows -
Patricia Mukhim
July 4th at 04:07. Facebook for Android
“Conrad Sangma CM Meghalaya, what happened yesterday at Lawsohtun where some Non-Tribal youth playing Basketball were assaulted with lethal weapons and are now in Hospital, is unacceptable in a state with a Government and a functional Police Force. The attackers allegedly tribal boys with masks on and should be immediately booked. This continued attack of Non-Tribals in Meghalaya whose ancestors have lived here for decades; some having come here since the British period is reprehensible to say the least. The fact that such attacker and trouble mongers since 1979 have never been arrested and if arrested never penalized according to law suggests that Meghalaya has been a failed State for a long time now. We request your government and the police force under the present DGP, R. Chandranathan, to take this matter with the seriousness it deserves. Show us the public that we have a police force we can look up to.
And what about the Dorbar Shnong of the area? Don't they have their eyes and ears to the ground? Don't they know the criminal elements in their jurisdiction? Should they not lead the charge and identify those murderous elements? This is the time to rise above community interests, caste and creed and call out for justice.
We hope that this will not be yet another case lost in the Police files. We want action. Criminal elements have no community. They must be dealt with as per the law of the land.
Why should our Non-Tribal brethren continue to live in perpetual fear in their own state? Those born and brought up here have as much right to call Meghalaya their State as the indigenous Tribal does. Period.”
4. On 6th July 2020 the headman and secretary Dorbar Shnong, Shillong file a complaint with the police in Meghalaya that the statement made by the appearance at on Facebook promoted communal tension which might instigate a communal conflict. The Dorbar Shnong also complained of defamation. As a result of the said complaint of FIR was registered at the police station and a notice was issued to the petitioner under section 41a of criminal procedure court directing her to appear before the police.
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT
1. The appellant filed criminal petition number 9 of 2020 in the high court of Meghalaya for quashing the FIR the high court however by its judgement dated on 10th November 2020 dismiss the criminal petition the legality of which is challenge in this present appeal. The high court observed that the reference to the attack on the non tribals in state of Meghalaya by the tribals has propensity to cause a rift between the two communities. High court also said that the Facebook post sought to arouse feelings of enmity and hatred between the two communities. Prima facie offence under section 153A of the Indian penal code was made out.
2. After hearing both the sides the supreme court held that the contention of the appellant was that ingredients of the offence under section 153 a of IPC has not been made out and the FIR registered against the appellant deserves to be quashed the appellant also contended that the Facebook post shall be read in its entirety. The brutal attack on the non-tribals was only highlighted for calling suitable action against the culprits. the petitioner also submitted that there was no intention to promote any feeling of hate or enormity between two communities. The petitioner also asserted her right guaranteed under part 3 of the Constitution in Article 19 (1) (a).
3. The respondent contended that petitioner is a renowned journalist and should be more responsible while making public comments. The respondent also contended that the comments have the tendency of promoting communal hatred and could lead to communal disharmony. The respondent also submitted that the High court was right in causing the application filed under section 482 CrPC and requested this court to not interfere as the investigation is in process.
4. The supreme court laid emphasis on the quote by Thomas Jefferson - “It is of utmost importance to keep all speech free in order for the truth to emerge and have a civil society.”
The supreme court also observed that freedom of speech and expression which is article related under article 19 (1) (A) of the Indian Constitution is a extremely valuable fundamental right. However, it is not an absolute right and reasonable restrictions can be put on it.
5. The court referred the case of Balwant Singh versus State of Punjab1 in stating that only when there are written or spoken words that have the tendency of creating public disorder a disturbance of law and order or can affect public tranquility the law needs to interfere in such activities. The intention to cause the above-mentioned acts is the Sine qua non of the offence under section 153 a of IPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of intention in order to proceed.
6. The court also referred to the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State of Maharashtra 20072 and observed one cannot rely on strongly worded or isolated passages of a statement or a comment for providing the charge nor indeed one take a sentence here and a sentence their and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.
7. The court also analyzed the ingredients of section 153 (A) and 505 (2) IPC which was held in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs State of AP3.
8. The court also referred to a Ramesh vs union of India4 in which it was held that the words used in alleged criminal speech should be judged from the standard of reasonable strong minded, firm, and courageous men and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. The principle of English law "the man on the top of Clapham Omnibus" should be applied.
9. In the present case applying the principle laid down by the court mentioned above the question arises for the court’s consideration is whether the Facebook post was intentionally made for promoting community hatred and has a tendency to promote and enmity between two communities. The court held that the Facebook post was a close scrutiny against the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, the Director General of police, and the Dorbar Shnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits. The court also observed that when the Facebook post is read in its entirety it pleads for equality of non tribals in the state of Meghalaya.
10. There was no intention on the part of the applicant to incite people belonging to any communities to indulge in any violence. The basic ingredients of offence under section 153 (a) and 505 (1) (c) has not been made out. Ultimately the court held that the FIR is liable to be quashed.
11. The court also laid down that India is a plural and multicultural society, and the promise of liberty is in the preamble itself. And the citizens are given a right to free speech and expression.
The cry for help against the attack on six nonlocals carried by masked individuals cannot be categorized as hate speech by any stretch of imagination.
The court observed by the above analysis of the Facebook post made by the appellant is that no case is made out against it for an offence under section 153 (a) and 505(1) of IPC.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed, and the judgement of High court is set aside. And the FIR of case number 72 (7) 2020 dated on 6 July 2020 at Police station Laban is quashed.
CONCLUSION
In this case, a renowned journalist, Patricia Mukhim posted a post on Facebook criticizing the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, Director General of Police, and other concerned authorities for not taking adequate actions against the culprits in a case where 6 nonlocal boys playing basketball were beaten by masked men with sticks and rods.
A complaint was filed against her that this Facebook post is for the purpose of spreading communal hatred and defamation and could lead to public unrest. As a result, FIR was lodged under section 153(A), 500, and 505 (1)(C) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The petitioner filed an appeal in the High court which was consequently rejected but later when she appeared before the Supreme Court of India the court held that the Facebook post could not be interpreted as defamation, and spreading communal hatred, or for provoking communities against each other by any stretch of imagination and post shall be read in its entirety and no misinterpretation shall be made regarding the same.
The court also held that free speech of citizens cannot be stifled by implementing them in criminal cases.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
