Trial Court Erred In Relying On Wikipedia, Has To Consider Matter Afresh: Madras High Court Sets Aside NIA Court's Order Rejecting Discharge Plea

Therefore, it is clear that Hon'ble Supreme Court has put in a caveat and caution against use of such sources (Wikipedia) in legal dispute resolution. Acer India and Hewlett Packard / Lenevo principles make it clear that on this score, the trial Court fell in error i.e., fell in error in relying on Wikipedia and therefore, the matter has to go back to trial Court to consider the matter afresh de hors Wikipedia keeping in mind the caveat put in place by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Acer India as well as Hewlett Packard / Lenevo cases.

In the present case, the appellant Ziyavudeen Baqavi has been accused of browsing and sharing posts from the Facebook page of a "fundamentalist" organisation. He was charged for the offences of sedition, criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity between different groups while making statements conducing to public mischief. He was also charged under Section 13 (1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. When he moved a discharge petition before the Sessions Court under the NIA Act, the same was rejected.

On appeal, Baqavi contended that the impugned order relied on Wikipedia to conclude about the aim and objective of the entity and failed to take into consideration the case laws quoted by Baqavi. 

The court noted that the same was indisputable as the impugned order explicitly relied on Wikipedia for description of entity. The court also noted that the impugned order was silent with respect to the case laws cited by Baqavi and had merely brushed aside the same. The court said that the trial court should have made some discussion on how the case laws were not applicable to the present case.

Therefore, on this point also the matter has to go back to the trial Court for the learned trial Court to look into the case laws pressed into service as the case laws pressed into service by the petitioner before the trial court / appellant herein, are renderings of Hon'ble Supreme Court and they have been side stepped in one go saying the facts are different without saying how and why. If a case law is distinguished on facts, there should be some discussion on how facts are different though it can be terse or epigrammatic but in the case on hand the impugned order is silent on this.

With respect to the statement of witnesses, the court pointed out that under the Act, what had to be protected was the identity of the witnesses. 

A careful perusal of Section 44 makes it clear that all this pertains to protecting the identity of the witnesses who make the statement and it really has nothing to do with supply of the statements to the accused.

Thus, the court remanded the matter back to the court by setting aside the impugned order. The court also ordered that the trial court should take up the matter after supplying the statement of witnesses to the appellant.

Case Title: Ziyavudeen Baqavi v. The Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 130