NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakh each on political analyst Tehseen Poonawalla and musician Vishal Dadlani.
The High Court had imposed the fine on them for allegedly insulting and mocking Jain saint Tarun Sagar on Twitter in 2016. The Supreme Court noted that "courts are not supposed to do moral policing."
“What kind of order is passed by the court (Punjab and Haryana HC)? The court is not supposed to do moral policing. This is not function of the court at all," said a two-judge bench of the apex court, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Tuesday.
Soon after the verdict was pronounced by the apex court, Poonawalla, talking to TNIE, said that he was very happy that the Punjab and Haryana HC order was set aside by the SC.
"I am indebted and grateful to the Supreme Court for this great order. No one should do moral policing on anyone, whether it is police or government," he added.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its 2019 order, had quashed the criminal case filed against Dadlani and Poonawalla but imposed costs on them for allegedly insulting and mocking Jain saint Tarun Sagar.
The HC had imposed the cost on the duo, saying they had insulted the priest 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," HC had said.
According to the prosecution, Poonawalla posted a photoshopped image of a semi-nude woman alongside the Jain saint and raised a question about societal standards.
They later challenged the imposition of the fine in the Supreme Court.
Granting relief to the duo, the top court said the High Court was swayed by the fact that the appellant criticised a priest belonging to a particular religion.
The top court, after holding that no offence was made out against them, upheld their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
“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 (Poonawalla and Dadlani) 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 SC said in the order.
