'No Unfettered Right To Freedom Of Expression': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Man Accused Of Abusing Goddess Durga On WhatsApp

The Allahabad High Court recently said that the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties and that it does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered licence for every possible use of language.

The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed thus while refusing to quash a Chargesheet filed against one Dr Shiv Sidharth under Sections 295A IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act, 2008 accusing him of posting an objectionable message on WhatsApp containing abusive remarks on Goddess Durga which hurt the sentiments of the Hindus.

Challenging the chargesheet, the accused moved to the High Court wherein his Counsel submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 (Akhand Pratap Singh) who belongs to Hindu Vahini, and that though he had received the message in question, but the same was not sent/forwarded by him.

Per Contra, the AGA appearing for the State submitted that during the investigation in the case, two mobile phones have been recovered from the applicant and on examination of whats-app messages of the aforesaid, the allegations as levelled against the applicant have been found to be true as the same finds a place in the whats-app chat of the applicant.

It was further contended that on perusal of the FIR as well as the statements as given by the witnesses, a cognizable offence is made out against the applicant-accused and that the offence under Section 67 of the IT Act is also made out against him as such messages are found in the WhatsApp chat of the mobile recovered from the applicant.

Against this backdrop, at the outset, the Court perused Section 295A IPC to note that the provision does not stipulate everything to be penalized and that it doesn't say that any and every act would tantamount to insult or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens.

"It penalizes only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or religious belief of a class of citizens which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class of citizens. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the Section," the Court remarked.

The Court further observed that the internet and social media has become important tool through which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of expression but the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties and that it does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered licence for every possible use of language.

Importantly, the Court noted that the applicant admitted that the aforesaid message had been received by him in the WhatsApp chat and that he may be excused and forgiven for the fault, which has been committed by him, which means, the Court added, that he admits that he has received the message and sent the same to other groups.

In view of this, the Court found that cogent evidence had been found against him and hence, the Court dismissed his plea by making the following observation:

"Upon perusal of F.I.R. and the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicant, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. Perusal of charge sheet submitted against the applicant shows that after investigation, the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet after collecting cogent and reliable evidence against the applicant and thereafter the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant to face trial."

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Brijesh Kumar Prajapati

Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate Sanjay Singh

Case Title - Dr. Shiv Sidharth @ Shiv Kumar Bharti vs. State Of U.P And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6090 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 176

Click Here To Read/Download Order