Updated: December 2, 2020 7:11:38 am
“A public office in a democracy has to listen to criticism day after day. Ultimately, people have to find a balance between the rights of the whole society and individual rights, “the bank said.
Claiming that a “public office in a democracy” has to face criticism, the Bombay High Court said Tuesday that “ultimately, people must find a balance between the rights of the whole society and individual rights. The court also observed that “if we do not allow the younger generation to express themselves, how will they know that what they are expressing is right or wrong?”
Judges SS Shinde and MS Karnik’s division bench was listening to a statement by Sunaina Holey (38), a resident of Navi Mumbai who was booked by the Mumbai and Palghar police for allegedly making offensive comments on social media against Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and his son Aaditya Thackeray in July this year.
Holey sought provisional protection against arrest and annulment of all FIRs and charges against him.
Mumbai and Palghar police had filed three FIRs against Holey, after several people, including Yuva Sena member Rohan Chavan, filed police complaints against her.
It was registered under Sections 505 (Statements Leading to Public Injury) and 153A (Promotion of Enmity Between Different Groups) of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the TI Act.
On October 30, the court ordered Holey to appear before the police and cooperate with the investigation. “The job of police officers is difficult these days. Sometimes they have shifts of more than 12 hours. Then they have to do bandobast for morchas and processions. With all these odds, the Mumbai Police are considered one of the best in the world after Scotland Yard, ”Judge Shinde had said.
On Tuesday, defender Abhinav Chandrachud, who represented Holey, argued that the state cannot restrict the fundamental right to speak, and she was simply voicing her opinion by criticizing the government’s policy.
“It is true, but we also have to make sure that the fundamental right of one person does not cause harm to another person,” the bank said.
When Chandrachud showed the court a video clip of Holey, which he had posted on Twitter, the court asked the government attorney: “Will you act against every person who says something on Twitter and how many actions will you take?”
Read also | Lawyers urge CJ to allow virtual hearing option in Mumbai HC
Additional prosecutor JP Yagnik told the court that the police were trying to investigate the intent behind the posts after a complaint was registered. When the court indicated that it was prima facie unwilling to agree with him, it argued that the defendant should not be let go entirely and that there had to be some restraint on Holey’s part.
The bank then pointed out: “A public official in a democracy has to listen to criticism day after day. Ultimately, people must find a balance between the rights of the whole society and individual rights. We judges have been asked not to watch TV, Twitter, and we don’t know anything. We go to court with a fresh mind. We have adopted a democratic structure ”.
He added: “However, the younger generation will find something to write about (social media). If we don’t allow the younger generation to express themselves, how will they know that what they are expressing is right or wrong? “
The court will continue to hear the guilty plea on December 3.
.
