Supreme Court Quashes Manipur Police Notice To Trans Woman After She Expressed Regret For Comments Against Social Welfare Dept
The Court quashed the police summons subject to the petitioner's undertaking that she would not make such public comments.
The Supreme Court recently quashed police summons issued to a transgender woman activist of Manipur, over her social media posts alleging misappropriation of transgender persons' welfare fund by the social welfare department.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, taking into account the fact that the petitioner-activist had joined investigation and even expressed...
The Supreme Court recently quashed police summons issued to a transgender woman activist of Manipur, over her social media posts alleging misappropriation of transgender persons' welfare fund by the social welfare department.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, taking into account the fact that the petitioner-activist had joined investigation and even expressed regret regarding her statement. The Court recorded an undertaking that she would not make such remarks in future on any public platform or social media. If she has a grievance in future, she'd raise that before an appropriate forum.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Anand Grover (for petitioner), submitted that the petitioner had no intention to harm the reputation of any government department or other Authority, and regretted the remarks she made on social media. He asserted that she had only wanted to be heard before the trans welfare board, as a representative of transgender women.
It was further informed that she had joined the investigation. The senior counsel, on instructions, also communicated the petitioner's undertaking that she would not repeat the incident in future.
Keeping in view the same, the Court impressed upon Manipur's counsel to be "magnanimous" and ignore the one-off bonafide incident. When the counsels agreed, the Court quashed the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 160 CrPC, and all subsequent proceedings, subject to her complying with the undertaking.
Background
The controversy arose when the petitioner made some remarks on Facebook on September 1, 2023, alleging mismanagement of transgender welfare funds and programs in the State of Manipur. It was her grievance that though she was invited to a meeting organized by the Manipur State Transgender Welfare Board, as a representative of trans-women, she was not involved in the decision-making process.
In response to the post(s), a team of male police officers visited the house of the petitioner's parents on the morning of September 3, 2023, seeking her whereabouts. Subsequently, she was served a police notice for attendance under Section 160 CrPC.
Seeking protection from the Manipur police's actions and quashing of the police summons, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
She contended that directing her to appear before a police station placed her at risk of violence, gravely violating her rights to bodily autonomy and safety. In support, she relied on the judgment in NALSA v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court recognized transgender rights, gender identity, and the importance of protecting transgender individuals from discrimination.
Reference was also made to the 1978 Supreme Court decision in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, which emphasized the importance of police officers adhering to law and not ignoring safeguards in place to protect women and children.
Last year, the Supreme Court issued notice on the petitioner's plea. It further restrained Manipur police from registering any fresh case based on the posts. In February this year, the Court asked the petitioner to join the investigation.
Case Title: Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai v. State of Manipur, W.P.(Crl.) No. 498/2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 752