DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
05 May, 2021
JUDGES:
Justice S. S. Shinde& Justice M. S. Karnik
PARTIES:
Sunaina Holey (Plaintiff)
State of Maharashtra(Respondent)
SUMMARY
The following judgement deals with the tweet made by Sunaina Holey on Twitter but it was alleged against her that she was promoting enmity between different groups on the basis of religion. The court held that the intention of the Petitioner can by no stretch of imagination be said to cause disorder or incite people to violence which is the sine qua non for the offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the FIR be pleased to quash and set aside.
AN OVERVIEW
1. Sunaina Holey, a Twitter user; was booked under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion) of the Indian Penal Code for her tweet about the ocean of migrant workers assembled outside Bandra Station, in Mumbai, at the pinnacle of the nationwide lockdown on 14 April 2021.
2. Under Section 482 of CrPC, Holey filed a criminal writ petition and claimed merely tweeted a line from the video posted. She claimed the FIR against her was politically spurred, particularly since the tweet is incredulous of the State Government.
IMPORTANT PROVISION
Constitution of India:
- Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution
- Section 153-Aof the Indian Penal Code.
ISSUES
The major issue concerned in this case-
• Whether Sunaina Holey would be liable under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. The State strongly opposed such a prayer for quashing of FIR claiming the investigation was not complete and it was important to know the intention behind such tweets.
2. The Hon’ble Court observed 'The words used by accused must be judged from the standpoint of a reasonable person, not an over sensitive person who scents danger in every hostile point of view'. Upon reading the contents of the said tweet, it is difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the Petitioner has mens rea to commit the alleged offence.
3. Holey's primary contention was that the fundamental right to speech of a citizen could not be curtailed and that she was merely expressing her opinion and criticizing the policy of the government.
4. A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik observed “The right to express one's views is a protected and cherished right in our democracy. Merely because the point of view of the Petitioner is extreme or harsh will not make it a hate speech as it is only expressing a different point of view”.
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Court observed that after appreciating the fact and circumstances of the case, the contents of the aforesaid FIR be pleased to quash and set aside the aforesaid FIR."
