Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Congress Worker Sandeep Kudale For Social Media Posts Against BJP’s Chandrakant Patil

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 and Mahatma Jyotiba Phule. 

The division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Prithviraj K Chavan quashed both FIRs and imposed costs. Advocate General Birendra Saraf for the State 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, Justice Dere 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, she 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 bench was of the opinion that the Congress worker’s comments were clearly his criticism of the Minister's alleged derogatory statements about Dr. Ambedkar on social media platform and the same does not constitute offence under Section 153A IPC. It observed,

"Law cannot be used as a tool or as an instrument of oppression, by registering FIRs, to harrass people by preventing/intimidating them, from expressing their views/opinions/dissent, which the Constitution of India, guarantees to them. The right to express one’s views is a protected and cherished right in our democracy and cannot be taken away by imposition of Section 153A of the IPC and by arresting a person as done in the present case. Section 153A cannot be resorted to silence people from expressing their views/opinions/dissent, so long as Article 19(2) is not violated. Cases under Section 153A are on the rise and the onus is on the police/State to ensure that the said provision is not misused by anyone, much less, political parties."

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. 

The FIR further alleged that Kudale filmed a video standing outside Patil's house and the posts created an atmosphere of contempt against Patil.

"I stand here outside Chandrakant Patil’s residence at Kothrud to condemn the statement made by him about Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar and Mahatma Jyotiba Phule. He should not only apologise but also read books written by both of them to understand their contribution for the betterment of the society and introspect. We belong to the Congress party which believes in “nafrat chhodo aur bharat jodo,” the Congress worker had said in his post. 

Advocate Subodh Desai along with Advocate Lokesh Zade for Kudale had submitted that the FIR is mala fide, and the alleged offences are not made out. He had also argued that identical FIRs were registered against Kudale. In his plea, Kudale had cited a possibility of false implication because of political vendetta as the complainant is a member of BJP and Kudale is a member of Congress Party.

The petition stated that the alleged enmity must be caused among two or more communities however the mere mention of another community is not sufficient to attract section 153A. Further, there was no mens rea to cause disharmony between different groups and community of people, according to Kudale’s petition.

During the hearing the bench had asked the State why notice under section 41A CrPC was not issued and whether it was not required. It had further sought to know how the posts caused disharmony between different religious groups and created a situation which required adding section 153A of the IPC.

The court had remarked that the police are expected to uphold procedure before taking a ‘drastic step’ of arrest.

Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf for the State had submitted that the FIRs were not identical. He said that the first FIR was registered on a complaint after the police assessed the ground situation. Referring to state-wide protests after Patil’s comments, he submitted that the situation was volatile and “police acted their best to curb it”.

In response to this the bench had said, “Who is responsible for inciting the situation? If your argument is to be accepted, you have to see who was responsible for the entire situation.”

Case no. – WPST/21880/2022

Case Title – Sandeep Kudale v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 120