Merely Publishing News Against Cop Won't Create Disaffection Amongst Police Or Incite Them To Act Against Govt.: Bombay High Court

The Bench of Justice T. V. Nalawade & Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni allowed the plea of the applicant that case filed against him for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 be quashed and set aside.

The matter before the Court

An F.I.R. was registered against the applicant, wherein it was alleged that he made false allegations against respondent number 4 (Harshwardhan Govind Gawali, Police Inspector) and Sub Divisional Police Officer Shri. Dilip Tiprase by sending representation to his superior officer and by publishing news in local newspaper.

It was the contention of respondent No. 4 that he came across the news item published in 'Khadtar Pravas' newspaper that a crime of rape was registered against him on the basis of report given by a lady police officer.

It was contended that several other allegations were also levelled against him in the said news report.

It was his contention that due to the news item he was feeling disturbed and depressed as the news item defamed him in the society.

It was also contended that it was the applicant at whose instance the news item was published and so, he committed the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and section 500 of I.P.C.

On the basis of this report, the crime at C.R. No. 2/2019 was registered against the applicant and during pendency of the matter charge sheet was filed for these offences.

Arguments put forth

The Senior Counsel representing the applicant submitted that at any stretch of imagination and even after accepting the allegations made by respondent No. 4 as they are, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed the offence punishable under Section 3 of the 1922 Act.

It may be noted that Section 3 the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 runs as under :-

"3. Penalty for causing disaffection, etc. :- Whoever intentionally causes or attempts to cause, or does any act which he knows is likely to cause disaffection towards the Government established by law in India amongst the members of a Police force, or induce or attempts to induce, or does any act which he knows is likely to induce any member of a police force to withhold his services or to commit a breach of discipline, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.

Explanation.- Expressions of disapprobation of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means or disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government do not constitute an offence under this section unless they the cause or are made for the purpose of causing or are likely to cause disaffection."

The Counsel for the applicant relied on the Gujarat HC's Judgement in Bharat Desai, Editor, Times of India and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr

In this case, various articles were published in Times of India on different occasions against the newly appointed Police Commissioner of Ahmadabad. Consequently, a crime was registered against Bharat Desai, Editor, Times of India.

It was the case of State that due to such publication there was possibility of creation of disaffection amongst members of police force and that had created probability that subordinates of Police Commissioner may refuse to obey his orders and that may also spread indiscipline.

The High Court held that such comments questioning the wisdom of State Government cannot lead to inference that there was intention of the publisher to induce or incite police which is requirement of Section 3 of the Act.

It was further held that such disaffection needs to be created amongst police and it should be against the Government.

Court's observations

In view of the wording of Section 3, the Bombay High Court, in the instant matter held that the interpretation of Section 3 made by Gujarat High Court in Bharat Desai Case "needs to be accepted and used in the present matter also."

Further, the Bombay HC relied on the Apex Court's ruling in the case of N. Sengodan Vs. Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise) Department, Chennai and others, wherein it was held that,

"For attracting the penalty under Section 3 for causing disaffection, it is to be proved that the person concerned intentionally caused or attempted to cause or done any act which is likely to be disaffection towards the Government established by law in this country among the members of the Police force or induces or attempts to induce or does any act which he knows likely to induce any member of the Police force to withhold his service or committed breach of discipline."

In the instant matter, the Court noted that it was the case of respondent No. 4 that allegations were unfounded and they had defamed him.

To this, the Court said,

"In view of the wording of Section 3 of the Act, it can be said that the purpose of the publication of the matter was not to create disaffection amongst police or incite them to act against the Government. Thus, even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are accepted as they are, they cannot make out offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act."

Further, the Court said that allegations made by the applicant "may amount at the most offence of defamation punishable under section 500 of I.P.C" and that "it is open to respondent No. 4 to take appropriate action permissible under law for making such allegations against him."

Lastly, the Court held that the case filed against applicant for offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act "needs to be quashed and set aside."

Case title - Ravindra v. The State of Maharashtra and others [Criminal Application No. 356 of 2020]