Freedom of expression is not an absolute right and has restrictions, the Bombay High Court said.
Mumbai:
The Bombay High Court said on Friday that the freedom of expression provided for in article 19 of the Constitution was not an absolute right.
The court made the observation while refusing to grant provisional protection against arrest to a woman charged by the Mumbai and Palghar police for allegedly making offensive comments on Twitter against Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and his son Aditya Thackeray.
However, a bench of judges SS Shinde and MS Karnik accepted a verbal guarantee from the state government that the woman, Sunaina Holey, will not be arrested in the case for at least the next two weeks.
However, the state added that such relief will be subject to Ms. Holey visiting the Azad Maidan and Tulinj police stations in Mumbai and the Palghar district, respectively, for questioning and “cooperating” with the police in their investigation. .
The court also allowed Ms. Holey to approach the court at any time during this period in case the police decided to take any coercive action against her, or if any of her rights were violated.
Ms. Holey has addressed the Bombay High Court through her lawyer Abhinav Chandrachud, requesting that all charges against her be dropped.
As an interim measure, he had requested that the court grant him protection from arrest until his case was finally heard and the court made a decision to vacate the FIRs against him.
Ms. Holey has three FIRs filed against her, one at the BKC Cybercrime Police Station, another at the Azad Maidan Police Station, and the third at the Tulinj Police Station in Palghar.
The FIRs were registered following complaints made by various people, including one Rohan Chavhan, leader of Shiv Sena’s youth wing, Yuva Sena.
According to the allegations, Sunaina Holey, 38, made offensive and defamatory comments against the Chief Minister and her son on Twitter.
She was arrested in August this year and released on bail in the case concerning the FIR registered against her by the BKC cybercrime police.
In the remaining two FIRs, you were served notices under section 41A (1) of the CrPC, asking you to visit the appropriate police stations to conduct an investigation.
On Friday, the state’s attorney, YP Yagnik, told the court that Holey had not responded to the notices.
Attorney Chandrachud, however, said his client feared that if she visited the police, she would be arrested. Therefore, she sought temporary relief. However, the court said that provisional protection against arrest could only be granted for arrest in rare cases.
But he noted that section 41 (A) provided that a person need not be arrested while cooperating with the police investigation. And in case one is required to be arrested, the police must give advance notice of said arrest.
Yagnik said the police did not simply focus on arresting Ms. Holey, but wanted to advance their investigation.
The court accepted Ms Holey’s statement that she will visit the two police stations next week.
Sunaina Holey, a resident of Navi Mumbai, has been charged pursuant to sections 505 (2) of the IPC for statements that create or promote enmity, hatred or ill will between classes and 153 (A) for promoting enmity between different religious groups, and under relevant sections of the IT Law.
According to the police, he had made a series of social media posts between July 25 and 28, including an offensive cartoon of Uddhav Thackeray and Aditya Thackeray.
On Friday, while pressing for interim relief, defender Chandrachud told the court that the case was “the rarest of the rare,” as Holey was now being targeted for each and every one of her tweets.
His client’s rights under article 19 of the Constitution were being violated, he argued.
“This has now taken on a political color and for every tweet that I have a registered FIR. I have to run from one pillar to another,” said defender Chandrachud.
However, the court recalled that the right to freedom of expression and expression under article 19 was not absolute. “Perhaps citizens have the impression that freedom of speech and expression is an absolute right, without restrictions,” the court said.
Chandrachud, however, said that Sunaina Holey was not under such an impression.
The court will hear Holey on the issue of voiding the FIRs on September 29. It also directed the state to submit its response to Ms. Holey’s guilty plea by then.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is posted from a syndicated feed.)
.
