Sandeep Kudale's Criticism Of Minister Chandrakant Patil’s Alleged Derogatory Statements On Ambedkar Not Offence U/S 153A IPC: Bombay High Court

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan, in a judgement on Monday, observed,

“It appears that the petitioner made the said comments pursuant to the alleged derogatory comments made by the Minister on a public platform with respect to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil. The petitioner had only expressed his opinion, his dissent, and condemned what was stated by the Minister…It cannot be said to be an act, spreading hatred or venom, warranting the petitioner’s prosecution, merely because the police apprehended breach of public tranquility or a law and order situation.”

The bench further observed that the facts of the case did not warrant slapping of Section 153A IPC on such "flimsy grounds”. The bench said that at the highest, one of the words used by the petitioner “can be said to be distasteful” but certainly not warranting registration of the FIR, much less the petitioner’s arrest.

The bench observed that the petitioner Sandeep Kudale did neither incite any violence or hatred and his act was a non-violent act carried out peacefully all by himself, without taking out any procession or holding banners or arranging a public meeting. Keeping this in mind, the court made an observation on the police’s conduct and said, “It is the duty of the police to maintain law and order and the same cannot be done by invoking Section 153A so lightly, on the pretext, on which, it is done."

It added that the act of the petitioner (of making a video criticizing Minister Chandrakant Patil) was well within his right to express his opinion, as guaranteed by the Constitution. “Merely because the petitioner’s comments hurt the complainant’s sensibilities, was not a ground for the police to register the FIRs, much less arrest him,” the order reads.

The bench also observed that the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (Right to freedom of speech and expression) is a very important right which enables a person to express his or her opinions freely, subject to reasonable restrictions. “This right guaranteed to all its citizens, is a valuable right and is the backbone of a healthy and vibrant democracy. In a way, it enshrines the principle of “liberty of thought and expression” given in the Preamble,” the court observed.

Adding that law cannot be used as a tool or as an instrument of oppression, by registering FIRs, to harass people by preventing/intimidating them, from expressing their views/opinions/dissent, which the Constitution of India guarantees to them, the bench noted that the petitioner was arrested and was in custody for two days, “despite prima facie, no offence, being disclosed against the petitioner.”

The court then came down heavily on the police and said, “The police, before arresting, must first apply their mind, as to whether any offence is made out or not, as an arrest visits serious consequences on the person arrested. The offences alleged have serious connotations/ramification and the police have to be mindful of the same. Invocation of the said sections has serious repercussions not only on that person’s life, but also his family life, causes incalculable harm to one’s reputation and even career. It cannot and must not be lightly invoked. Prima-facie, it appears to us that the petitioner was slapped with the said sections, without any application of mind, when on the face of it, no such offence was made out against the petitioner.”

Background

The Bombay High Court on Monday quashed two FIRs against Congress party worker Sandeep Kudale and imposed Rs. 25,000 costs on the State to be recovered from the salary of the police officer for wrongful arrest.

Kudale was arrested on December 11, 2022 by the Pune Police under sections 153A(1)(a) and 153A(1)(b) of the IPC (promoting enmity between different groups) for a social media post after State Minister for Higher Education Chandrakant Patil's statements on Dr. BR Ambedkar, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf for the State had opposed the imposition of costs and sought time to argue. He said there were several judgements against recovering money from police officer’s salary.

However, the bench observed there was a defiance of the court’s orders and police officers should know the consequences of their actions, especially for arresting people when no case is made out. There were several other cases where this was happening, Justice Dere said. “Officers should learn to say no,” the judge added severing to the possibility of pressure to register cases.

Justice Dere further said they would increase the amount of costs imposed if such attitude continued.

The FIR registered at Kothrud Police Station, alleged that Kudale promoted enmity between different groups through his video posted on social media against minister Chandrakant Patil's statement about Dr BR Ambedkar and Mahatma Jyotiba Phule started schools by begging for money.

Case no. – WPST/21880/2022

Case Title – Sandeep Kudale v. State of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment