Freedom Of Speech & Expression Does Not Permit A Person To Question The Status Of A Part Of The Country Or Its People: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently held that the freedom of speech and expression cannot be stretched to such a limit as to allow an individual to call Kashmir an occupancy of the military or to say that the people of Kashmir are being held as slaves. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed: "In my opinion, the freedom of speech and expression...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently held that the freedom of speech and expression cannot be stretched to such a limit as to allow an individual to call Kashmir an occupancy of the military or to say that the people of Kashmir are being held as slaves.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed:
"In my opinion, the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be stretched to such a limit as to allow a person to question the status of a part of the Country or its people. It is one thing to criticize the Government for its negligence and express outrage on the violation of human rights of the people but it is quite another to advocate that the people of a particular part of the Country are slaves of the Government of India or that they are under occupation of armed forces of the Country."
The observations was made while dismissing the petition filed by Advocate Muzamil Butt, seeking quashing of the FIR against him under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The petitioner was booked in 2018 for posting on Facebook certain comments regarding the killings of six civilians in a blast at a gunfight site at Laroo Village in Kulgam that had triggered outrage across Kashmir.
In his Facebook post, the petitioner among other things, said: "For the first time in my life, I felt broken and weak and I could acknowledge that we are slaves and slaves have no life of their own...It reflects on those heartless structures that celebrate occupation of military bonhomie in cozy champagne circuits and page three parties of Gupkar".
Justice Dhar opined that the petitioner, who happens to be an advocate, can very well understand the import of these expressions. The bench observed,
"By making these comments, he is certainly advocating and supporting the claim that Jammu and Kashmir is not a part of India and that it is occupied by Indian military with the people having being (been) reduced to the status of slaves. Thus, he is questioning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country."
The bench observed that by uploading these posts, the petitioner has crossed the "Lakshman Rekha" which demarcates the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India from the reasonable restrictions imposed on such freedom on the ground of sovereignty and integrity of India and is hence liable to face the law of the land.
Adjudicating on the matter the bench found it worthwhile to explain that the expression of outrage at the negligence and inhuman attitude of the security forces, police and establishment would come within the ambit of freedom of expression of an individual, which includes the freedom to criticize the government of the day as it is permissible under law, but the same may not be the position if an individual questions the fact of a state being a part of the country by using the expressions 'occupation of military' or the people being 'slaves'.
Discussing the subject the bench further observed that the intention of a person can be gathered from the words spoken or written or other expressions and the expressions used by the petitioner, who happens to be a law knowing person, clearly show that he intended to advocate a particular ideology which supports the claim of secession of Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of India. This act of the petitioner, therefore, prima facie, falls within the definition of 'unlawful activity' as contained in Section 2(o) of the [Unlawful Activities (Prevention)] Act punishable under Section 13 of the Act", the bench recorded.
For the forgoing reasons, the Court said it cannot be stated that no offence is made out from the contents of the impugned FIR and thus it is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Title: Muzamil Butt Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(JKL) 80