Do you intend to extend Gag on Public, High Court asks Police

On Tuesday, the High Court of Bombay sought to know if the Mumbai Police intended to extend the “gag order” - order issued on May 23 under section 144 of the CrPC that made criticising the government & its functioning a punishable offence.

The HC was hearing a plea filed by Navi Mumbai resident & journalist Rajeev Mishra, through Lawyer DP Singh, challenging the May 23 order on the ground that it was violative of the freedom of speech & expression.

Prohibitory orders under section 144 of CrPC are being issued right from the beginning of the nationwide lockdown given the COVID-19 pandemic & are being renewed from time to time. Mishra has complained that the section 144 order issued on May 23 not only prohibited dissemination of fake news, incorrect information & other objectionable content on various social media platforms but also specifically stated that legal action will be taken against those criticising the state & its functioning in the times of COVID-19.

Amongst other directives, the order prohibits any person from inciting mistrust towards Govt functionaries & their actions taken to prevent the spread of the Coronavirus & thereby causing danger to human health or safety or a disturbance to the public tranquillity & specifically stared that any person contravening this prohibitory order will be prosecuted under Section 188 of the IPC, the petition added.

According to Mishra’s counsel, advocate Amogh Singh, this gag on public speaking against the State Govt’s functioning was completely in breach of freedom of speech & expression guaranteed by the Constitution & therefore liable to be struck down.

However, when the plea came up for hearing on Tuesday, assistant public prosecutor Madhavi Mhatre pointed out that the order under challenge has expired on June 8, & the plea had become infructuous.

The bench of justice Ujjal Bhuyan & justice Riyaz Chagla sought to know if the police authorities intended to extend the gag by extending the order dated May 23 or by issuing similar order. The bench adjourned the petition till June 23 after the prosecutor sought time to answer the query. 

Source Link