The Bombay High Court on Tuesday asked the Mumbai Police if they intend to extend the “gag order” issued on May 23 under Section 144 (power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), which makes criticising the government, and its functioning, a punishable offence.

A Division Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Riyaz Chagla was hearing a petition filed by Rajeev Mishra, a journalist, through advocate D.P. Singh, urging the court to set aside a May 23 order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations) and the Executive Magistrate, Greater Mumbai. The petition said the order is against the basic principles of freedom of speech and expression.

The petition said, “The gag order, signed by Pranaya Ashok, Dy Commissioner (Operations), has listed several issues faced by the State, including dissemination of fake news, incorrect information and other objectionable content on various social media platforms. Along with the prohibitions on social media usage, the order, issued under Section 144 of the Cr.PC, has specifically directed legal action against those criticising the State and its functioning in the times of COVID-19.”

The petition said, “The police have claimed that the order was issued to deal with the “animosity created in the State due to the COVID-19 pandemic”.

The order, effective from May 25 to June 8, among other directives, “prohibits any person inciting mistrust towards government functionaries and their actions taken in order to prevent spread of the COVID- 19 virus and thereby causing danger to human health or safety or a disturbance to the public tranquility”.

Any person contravening this prohibitory order will be prosecuted under Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the Indian Penal Code, the order said.

Government counsel Madhavi Mhatre informed the court that the validity of the order was till June 8 and that period is over Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.

The Bench, however, questioned whether the said order would be extended or a similar order issued. The matter was posted for hearing on June 23.