Supreme Court Restrains Tripura Police From Acting Against 4 People For Tweets On Tripura Riots

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant was considering 4 connected writ petition(s) pleas preferred by Md Faisal Uddin, Amreen, Mahek Sultana and Ashraf Ali Ansari.

The Top Court while staying the further proceedings in the FIR against the petitioners also tagged the plea(s) with the plea filed by activist-journalist Samiullah Shabbir Khan's to whom the bench had granted similar protection.

What Transpired In Supreme Court During Hearing?

Advocate Shahrukh Alam appearing for the petitioners submitted that notices under Section Section 41A CrPC were sent indiscriminately to the students and young people for their tweets on Tripura riots.

"Your lordships had protected us earlier," she further added.

Referring to its earlier order wherein the Top Court had restrained the Tripura Police from proceeding against the activist Journalist, Justice Chandrachud said, "We'll issue notice. Tag with that order and restrain the police."

"Are the FIR's the same ? Which is the PS at which the FIR's have been registered at?" asked Justice Chandrachud.

"Exactly the same. The tweets are also before your lordships. West Agartala," responded Alam.

Accordingly the bench in their order said,

"Pending further orders, there shall be stay of further proceedings."

On February 6, the bench led by Justice Chandrachud had pulled up the Tripura police for repeatedly sending notices to people over tweets, despite the restraint orders passed by the Court in similar cases earlier.

"Once we have passed an order (on January 10) covering an issue, albeit in one case, you must show the responsibility, some deference to the court! Otherwise, we will call the superintendent of police to us if he is trying to evade complying with the order by issuing all these kinds of notices to others! We will ask all to remain present, including the home secretary! There is no other way!", Justice Chandrachud had observed then.

Details of the Plea By Md Faisal Uddin

It was stated in the petition that the Petitioner for the first time received a notice on 29' January 2022 u/s 41A of Cr.P.C directing him to appear, on 7.02.22 at Tripura Police Crime Branch in Agartala, in connection with registered u/s 153 A, 153 B, 469, 471, 503, 504, 120 B of IPC well as section 13 of UAPA.

The petitioner further stated that through his tweet he had only appealed to everyone to pray for people of Tripura in the upcoming Friday prayers and had been summoned for questioning. It was also stated that the petitioner only has 13 followers and his twitter account is not linked with an email address.

"Impugned action of the police is perverse and completely misinterprets the law relating to 'speech acts as laid down by this Hon"ble Court. Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India allows restrictions on speech if it offers an imminent threat to public order. Thus for 'speech' to form an exception to constitutional protections, it must act like a "spark in a powder keg', such that public disorder is immediate and imminent," the plea stated.

The petition was filed through Advocate Sumita Hazarika had sought for quashing the notice dated January 20, 2022 served upon the petitioner u/s 41A of CrPC, 1973.

Case Title: MD Faisal Uddin v Superintendent of Police (Cyber Crime), Tripura Police & Connected Pleas