BREAKING: Karnataka High Court Quashes Magistrate's Order Directing FIR Against Kangana Ranaut For Tweet On Farmers Protest

The petition in that regards reads as "Lok Sabha on September 17, 2020 passed the Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on price assurance and Farm Service Bill, 2020 and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill 2020, all of which got the President's Assent on September 27, 2020. As against these enactments there was immense opposition shown by the general public to the extent that farmers across the country collectively called for nationwide protest and other such measures."

Further, "She strongly believed that this furore was being caused by the mass spreading of false information about the said enactments by various invested groups, leading to general unrest, strikes and protest over various parts of the country."

"The petitioner drew similarity between the said situation and the situation when the Central Government had enacted the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 which had led to protest and strikes in various parts of the nation. The petitioner formed an informed opinion on the same and believes that the reason for such strikes to have broke out then against the Citizenship Amendment Act as well as now against the Farmers Bill's is because of the misinformation being spread by certain vested groups, aiming at misleading the general citizenry of India and causing social unrest," it says.

The petition seeking to quash the order states that the complaint filed by respondent no 2, does not disclose the manner in which the tweet satisfies the ingredient of section 153 of and 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned order has been passed without application of mind and in a mechanical manner and is therefore erroneous and against the principles of law.

Further it says that "Essence of the offence under section 153A is promoting enmity between two different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. Merely inciting the feelings of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract the provisions of Section 153A."

Following which it is said "Bare reading of the tweet of the petitioner dated 21-09-2020, it becomes amply clear that the petitioner neither has the intention nor has she committed the overt act required to establish an offence under Section 153A. It is submitted that the words used in the tweet do not either directly or indirectly, promote enmity between different groups on any grounds and do not do or promote the doing of acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony."

It adds "Not only is the said tweet being misread, but meaning and intention are being accorded to it in subterfuge to create misconception in the minds of the general public."

The petition also states that "The tweet dated 21-09-2020 is just a statement of her opinion and there is no intention of provoking any one in any nature. The language used or the manner of expressing such opinion cannot in any manner be said to be provocative of any communal or group disparity. Such expression is protected by the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India".

The other ground raised is the petition in regards to Section 153, it is stated that the tweet cannot be said to be intended to cause riots, disharmony between any groups, identifiable or not.

It is also claimed that complainant/respondent no 2 is attempting to attribute his own interpretation of communal misunderstanding to the opinion of the petitioner and has misunderstood the plain and simple language used by her.

The other grounds raised in the petitioner are:

Respondent no 2 has not approached the court with clean hands but on the contrary the work of respondent no 2 itself is creating hatred amongst the people against the petitioner.

Further, private complaints and FIR are contrary to the facts. There is no prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. Hence the court below has erred in passing the order dated October 12, 2020 without applying its judicial mind but in a mechanical manner and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.