'Moral Policing Not Court's Function': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Imposing Costs For Tweets Against Jain Priest

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 8) set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that imposed cost of Rs. 10 Lakhs each on musician Vishal Dadlani and activist Tehseen Poonawala for allegedly insulting Jain Saint Tarun Sagar on Twitter, despite quashing the FIR registered against them.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the High Court should not have imposed costs on Dadlani and Poonawala after holding that no offence was made out against them and upholding their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

“Perusal of the impugned judgement shows that the High Court upheld the fundamental right of the appellant of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. After holding that no offence was made out against the appellant there was no question of imposing cost on the appellant and other petitioner”, the Court stated.

The Court held it is not the function of the courts to do moral policing and disapproved of the High Court's comment comparing the contribution made by the priest with Dadlani and Poonawala's contribution.

“We are of the view that after finding that absolutely no offence was made out when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, High Court ought not to have exercised advisory jurisdiction by telling the appellant that the contribution made by the priest was much more than what the appellant and the other accused have contributed. Function of the court is not to do moral policing”, the Court said.

The Court remarked that the High Court should have followed the well settled rule of “cost to follow event” and imposed costs on the respondent-complainant. “Perhaps High Court was swayed by the fact that the appellant and the other accused made criticism of a priest belonging to a particular religion”, the Court noted.

The rule of cost to follow event means that the unsuccessful party in the litigation should ordinarily pay costs.

Background

The case arose from musician Vishal Dadlani's tweets criticizing Tarun Sagar's nude appearance and the Haryana Government's action of calling him to the Legislative Assembly. Political commentator Tehseen Poonawala posted a photoshopped image of a semi-nude woman alongside the Jain saint and raised a question about societal standards.

The High Court quashed the FIR registered against them, holding that no offence under Sections 153A, 295A, 509 of the IPC and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act was made out from the complaint.

However, the Court observed that the duo had insulted Jain Muni Tarun Sagar and hurt the sentiments of the followers of the Jain religion. The Court imposed the cost so that in future they may not mock any head of a religious sect for publicity on social media.

The High Court compared the contributions of Dadlani and Poonawala with that of the Jain monk, observing, “If the contribution made by the petitioners towards poor people is compared to the contribution made by Jain Muni Tarun Sagar, it is apparent that the petitioners have played a mischief to gain publicity without having much to their credit.”

It further remarked that while social media posts had led to violent protests in the past, the teachings of non-violence and forgiveness by the Jain monk had prevented such protests.

The High Court noted that the complainant did not mention being a follower of Jain religion. Further, Vishal Dadlani had sought forgiveness from Jain Muni Tarun Sagar, who forgave him, and none of the followers of the Jain religion opted to prosecute them.

Despite these findings, the High Court imposed costs and directed Dadlani and Poonawala to deposit specified amounts with charitable trusts and funds as a condition for quashing the FIR.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 7550/2019

Case Title – Tehseen Poonawalla v. State of Haryana and Anr.