CHENNAI: Holding that the contents of the social media post made by TVK’s general secretary-election campaign Aadhav Arjuna, calling for an uprising against the state like in the neighbouring countries of Sri Lanka and Nepal to unseat the government, do not fall under the ambit of “mischief of hate speech”, the Madras High Court on Friday quashed an FIR registered against him by the cybercrime wing of the Greater Chennai Police.
Aadhav Arjuna made the post in the X on September 29 midnight and deleted it within 34 minutes. Following a complaint lodged by one Shanmugam of Chennai the GCP registered the FIR on September 30 for wantonly provoking with intent to cause rioting, promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race place birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration and public mischief.
He filed the petition in the High Court seeking to quash the FIR on the ground that it was done out of anger due to the “police lathi charge” against TVK cadre during the September 27 Karur stampede and not intended for inciting enmity or rioting.
Citing four judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with freedom speech and hate speech, Justice Jagadish Chandira stated the “freedom of speech encompasses the right to dissent, critique and express political discontent” and that criminal prosecution in matters of expression must be reserved only for cases of deliberate incitement, identity-based hatred or clear threat to the public order.
He observed that the tweet does not target any group nor target any caste, religion or community. In fact, though it speaks of probable uproar or protest, it does not call for violence or hatred nor does it incite anyone to indulge in imminent lawless action.
Further, the tweet is only a political opinion and criticism and it does not promote hatred or enmity, he said.
Though it may be politically provocative and critical of police excess during the relevant time, it “does not cross the Lakshman Rekha” so as to fall under the category of hate speech, he said.
And by this tweet, the petitioner has only sought to draw a parallel between public mood in the state and similar youth-led movements in Sri Lanka and Nepal predicting a possible awakening or protest.
He said such expression, even if it carries an element of provocation or discontent, can fall only within the permissible limits of the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and is not tantamount to hate speech.
“This Court has no incertitude in holding that the tweet posted by the petitioner, is only a manifestation of political dissent and forms part of the legitimate exercise of free speech in a democratic polity and cannot, by any stretch, be brought within the mischief of hate speech under the Constitutional or penal framework and only falls well within the protective ambit of Article 19(1)(a) and cannot be branded as hate speech or incitement for imminent violence,” the judge said in the order.
He noted that the intention to promote enmity or incite violence must be clearly evident for criminal liability to arise which is absent in this case; further pursuant to the tweet, “nothing untoward had happened even till the date of hearing.”
He also said mere discussion or advocacy, even unpopular or uncomfortable to those in authority, cannot be curtailed unless it reaches the threshold of incitement.
Hence, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner’s tweet posted in the social platform at a wee hour, can be expected to incite violence or protest, that too, when its viewership is only by a minuscule percentage of the population.
Senior counsels Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Aadhav Arjuna and NR Elango represented the Police.