Expressing dissent constitutionally protected under Article 19, says Allahabad HC
PRAYAGRAJ : The Allahabad high court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) which was lodged against a person for allegedly remarking that the Uttar Pradesh chief minister has transformed the state into “jungle raj in which no law and order prevails”.
The high court has observed, “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 of freedom of speech and expression).”
In an order dated November 23, a division bench comprising Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal allowed a writ petition filed by one Yashwant Singh, who had allegedly made certain remarks against UP CM from his twitter handle.
The court quashed FIR dated August 2, 2020, which was registered against the petitioner under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code (defamation) and Section 66-D (offence of cheating by personation by using computer resource) of Information Technology Act, 2008 at Bhognipur police station in Rama Bai Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh.
FIR lodged by the police authorities alleged that the petitioner Yashwant Singh used his twitter handle to remark that the chief minister of the state has transformed the state into a “jungle raj”. It also made a reference to various incidents of abduction, demand for ransom and murders, FIR said.
The petitioner challenged FIR before the court, contending that the right to comment on the affairs of the state was well within his constitutional right envisaged under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Mere dissent does not amount to criminality and the FIR had been lodged malafidely only with a view to coerce the petitioner to stop expressing his dissent against the state government, the petitioner argued.
Hence, no offence is made out against him, the petitioner said, requesting the court to quash FIR.
Quashing 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.
No offence under Section 66-D IT Act is made out. In so far, 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.”