PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad high court recently quashed an FIR lodged against a person for his alleged remarks that “the chief minister of UP has transformed the state into a jungle raj in which no law and order prevails”.
While delivering its judgment, the court observed that “expressing dissent on law and order situation in the state is a hallmark of a constitutional liberal democracy like ours, and the same is constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Constitution (right to freedom of speech and expression).”
Allowing a writ petition filed by one Yashwant Singh, who had made certain remarks against UP CM from his twitter handle, a division bench comprising Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal quashed the FIR dated August 2, 2020, registered against the petitioner under Sections 500 (defamation) and 66-D (offence of cheating by personation by using computer resource) of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Bhognipur police station of Kanpur Dehat district. The court also quashed all the consequential proceedings of the said FIR as well.
The FIR lodged by the police authorities alleged that petitioner Yashwant Singh allegedly remarked in his tweet that 'the chief minister of the state has transformed the state into a jungle raj in which no law and order prevails'. It also made reference to various incidents of abduction, demand of ransom and murders.
The counsel for the petitioner challenged the FIR before the court, contending that right to comment on the affairs of the state is well within his constitutional right envisaged under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Mere dissent does not amount to criminality and the FIR has been lodged with a malicious intention only with a view to coerce the petitioner to stop expressing his dissent against the state government. Hence, no offence is made out against him. Therefore, he requested the court to quash the FIR lodged against the petitioner.
However, during the court proceedings, the state counsel opposed the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel.
While quashing the FIR and the entire consequential proceedings against the petitioner, the court said, “We, after analysing the above provisions, regarding allegations made in the FIR, do not find even remotely a commission of offence under Section 66-D, as the said provision relates to cheating by personation. It is not the case of prosecution that while committing the overt act, the petitioner either tweeted using other’s twitter handle or was there any allegation of cheating.”
The court further observed, “No offence under Section 66-D of IT Act is made out. As far as Section 500 IPC (defamation) is concerned, the same is also not made out, as the alleged tweet cannot be said to fall within the mischief of defamation. Expressing dissent on law and order situation in the state, is a hallmark of a constitutional liberal democracy like ours, constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Constitution.”
The court pronounced this judgment on November 23.