On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to a Bengaluru-based chartered accountancy student accused of posting objectionable content against the Prime Minister and his mother on a parody account on X. The Court made it clear that misuse of the right to free speech disentitles an accused from discretionary relief, even at the pre-arrest stage.
The case arose from an FIR registered by the Ahmedabad police following a complaint filed on November 7 by a resident of Ahmedabad. The complainant alleged that the accused, a 24-year-old student, had posted defamatory content on his parody handle ‘Jawaharlal Nehru Satire’ targeting the Prime Minister and his mother, with the intent to “harm their dignity, reputation and tarnish India’s standing in the international community.” Following registration of the FIR, Gujarat police travelled to Bengaluru to question the accused. The social media platform X subsequently withheld the account after the FIR was lodged.
Aggrieved by the criminal proceedings, the accused approached the Apex Court seeking quashing of the FIR and protection from arrest, alleging violations of his fundamental rights under Article 14, Article19 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Petitioner argued that the accused had merely posed a question in response to a post which he had not authored. It was contended that for this act, he was being accused of outraging the modesty of a woman. Counsel further submitted that the Gujarat police had visited the petitioner’s residence and detained him at a Bengaluru police station without adhering to due procedure. Alleging threats of arrest, counsel urged that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation but required interim protection from arrest.
It was also submitted that the petitioner was a student, had expressed repentance for the post, and should at least be granted protection to enable him to join the investigation.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was not persuaded by the submissions. Taking note of the nature of the content, the Bench told the petitioner, “You do not have any sense of remorse or repentance for the abusive words you used against her.”
The Court rejected the plea that the conduct could be shielded under free speech, observing that constitutional liberties cannot be invoked to justify abuse. The Bench stated, “People who abuse free speech cannot be extended discretionary relief by the courts,” and reiterated during the hearing that a “Petitioner who has abused his free speech right cannot be extended discretionary relief by the court.”
Ultimately, while dismissing the petition, the Apex Court refused to quash the FIR and declined to grant anticipatory bail or protection from arrest. The Court, however, observed that the petitioner was at liberty to approach the Gujarat High Court for appropriate relief. By denying pre-arrest protection, the Court reinforced that while free speech remains a fundamental right, its exercise is subject to constitutional limits, particularly when it crosses into abuse and alleged defamation.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
