'Fake News' Case : Supreme Court Closes BJP Spokesperson Prashant Umrao's Plea After TN Govt Says Only One FIR Registered Against Him

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Pankaj Mithal was hearing two petitions filed by the advocate and BJP leader - a writ petition for the clubbing of the complaints registered against him in different police stations over his tweet; and a special leave petition against the condition imposed by the Madras High Court while granting him anticipatory bail.

On the last occasion, the court expressed displeasure over the wrong information the Umrao had allegedly shared on social media. Observing that Patel should be more responsible, especially as a lawyer, the Justice Gavai-led bench asked him to tender an apology for spreading misinformation before the next date of hearing. 

Today, Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari informed the bench that the writ petition for clubbing of FIRs had "worked itself out", pointing to a counter-affidavit filed by the state government assuring that only one FIR had been filed against Umrao in the state. The law officer added, "Let him avail whatever remedy available to him if he wants to challenge the FIR. My instruction is that the investigation is complete and the final report will be filed."

The court was apprised by Prashant Umrao's counsel that the BJP spokesperson had appeared before the investigating officer and the court in compliance with the earlier orders. He said, "We have also filed the affidavit..."

The court, at the end of today's hearing, modified the condition imposed by the high court requiring him to appear before the Tamil Nadu police for seven hours every day for 15 days. Earlier this year, in April, the court had passed an interim direction modifying the bail condition allowing the BJP leader to appear once in the station, and whenever required by the investigating officer after that. Today, Umrao's special leave petition was made absolute in terms of this temporary directive. Justice Gavai pronounced -

"Additional Advocate General for State of Tamil Nadu states that only one FIR is filed against petitioner. In view of this, WP 143/2023 does not survive and as such is disposed of. Insofar as CA 4351/203 is concerned...Mr Tiwari states that investigation is complete and charge sheet is to be filed. In view of this, the special leave petition is made absolute in term of interim order dated April 6."

Background

In February, videos of migrant workers allegedly being attacked in Tamil Nadu surfaced on social media. They were eventually debunked as fake by fact-checkers and the state police department, but not before causing widespread panic. Umrao was booked by the Thoothukudi Central police for allegedly spreading wrong information under Sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of the peace) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief). He was granted anticipatory bail by a single judge of the Madras High Court, but Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed him to appear before the investigating officer daily for a period of 15 days. This condition has been challenged in the SLP filed before the Supreme Court.

Further, he was granted anticipatory bail only after he signed an undertaking before the jurisdictional magistrate swearing that he would refrain from tweeting or forwarding any such message that would promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. The BJP spokesperson, inter alia, contended that he had only retweeted stories that were published by private news channels. He also told the single judge that on finding out that the news was not confirmed, he had promptly deleted the tweets. Before the state high court, Patel also alleged that he was a victim of 'political vendetta'. Patel had also tweeted, "I do not support any discrimination on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, or language. I was made a victim because of an opposite political ideology."

Noting that his tweets caused a "sorry state of affairs", the high court judge remarked that Umrao, being an advocate and a member of a national political party, should have thought about the consequences of such tweets. He wrote, "It is a sorry state of affairs that the petitioner is an advocate, and is actively involved in a national wide political party. He must have some responsibility over society. Before tweeting or forwarding Twitter messages, he must think about the consequences of the said messages and the genuineness of the said messages."

In the writ petition that was also heard together with the special leave petition against the Madras High Court's order, he contended that multiple complaints had been registered over the very same tweets posted by him.

Case Details:

1. Prashant Umrao @ Prashant Kumar Umrao v. Inspector of Police | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4351 of 2023

2. Prashant Kumar Umrao v. State of Tamil Nadu | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 143 of 2023