PRAYAGRAJ: “Expressing dissent on law and order situation in a state is a hallmark of a constitutional liberal democracy like ours, and the same is constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Constitution (that guarantees right to freedom of speech and expression),” the Allahabad high court recently observed while quashing an FIR lodged against a person for his alleged remarks that the “chief minister of Uttar Pradesh has transformed the state into a jungle raj in which no law and order prevails.”
Allowing a writ petition filed by one Yashwant Singh, who had made this remark against Yogi Adityanath on his Twitter handle, the HC said it didn’t “find even remotely a commission of offence” under two sections mentioned in the FIR.
The FIR was registered of August 2, 2020 under Sections 500 (defamation) and 66-D (offence of cheating by personation by using computer resource) of Information Technology (Amendment) Act at Bhognipur police station of Kanpur Dehat district. The FIR alleged that Singh had also made reference to various incidents of abduction, demand of ransom and murders in his tweet.
‘Mere dissent does not amount to criminality’
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. “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,” his counsel told the court, and requested the court to quash the FIR.
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, a division bench comprising Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal 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 provision relates to cheating by impersonation.”