Constitution of India, Article 19 (1) (a) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Section 153 A, 505 (1) (c) - Facebook post – FIR – Disapprobation of governmental inaction cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hatred between different communities - Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order - India is a plural and multicultural society - The promise of liberty, enunciated in the Preamble, manifests itself in various provisions which outline each citizen's rights; they include the right to free speech, to travel freely and settle (subject to such reasonable restrictions that may be validly enacted) throughout the length and breadth of India - At times, when in the legitimate exercise of such a right, individuals travel, settle down or carry on a vocation in a place where they find conditions conducive, there may be resentments, especially if such citizens prosper, leading to hostility or possibly violence - In such instances, if the victims voice their discontent, and speak out, especially if the state authorities turn a blind eye, or drag their feet, such voicing of discontent is really a cry for anguish, for justice denied - or delayed - Social media post.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Section 153 A, 505 (1) (c) - Facebook post – FIR – Where allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR is liable to be quashed - Constitution of India, Article 19 (1) (a) - Social media post.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Section 153 A, 505 (1) (c) - Facebook post – FIR – Charge that post sought to arouse feelings of enmity and hatred between two communities - The fervent plea made by the Appellant for protection of non-tribals living in the State of Meghalaya and for their equality cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be categorized as hate speech - It was a call for justice - for action according to law, which every citizen has a right to expect and articulate - Disapprobation of governmental inaction cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hatred between different communities - Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order - The sequitur of above analysis of the Facebook post made by the Appellant is that no case is made out against the Appellant for an offence under Section 153 A and 505 (1) (c) IPC - Constitution of India, Article 19 (1) (a) - Social media post.
Held on facts: A close scrutiny of the Facebook post would indicate that the agony of the Appellant was directed against the apathy shown by the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, the Director General of Police and the Dorbar Shnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits who attacked the non-tribals youngsters. The Appellant referred to the attacks on non-tribals in 1979. At the most, the Facebook post can be understood to highlight the discrimination against non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya. However, the Appellant made it clear that criminal elements have no community and immediate action has to be taken against persons who had indulged in the brutal attack on non-tribal youngsters playing basketball. The Facebook post read in its entirety pleads for equality of non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya. In our understanding, there was no intention on the part of the Appellant to promote class/community hatred.