Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, September 20
Freedom of speech does not entitle a person to make or post derogatory remarks against any community or gender, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted in a case where an accused allegedly used indecent and caste-based words against the Scheduled Castes on his Facebook account.
The assertion by Justice Alka Sarin came during the hearing of a second anticipatory bail petition in an FIR registered on June 6, 2020, for forgery and other offences under Sections 469, 509 and 153A of the IPC, besides the provisions of the IT Act and the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at Mehtiana police station in Hoshiarpur.
The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the indecent and caste-based words used by the petitioner on his Facebook account subsequently went viral. Justice Sarin, after hearing the contentions, observed Hoshiarpur Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated June 22, 2020, noticed that a copy of a compromise dated May 8, 2020, placed on the police record showed the applicant/accused had admitted committing a major mistake by using abusive language and hurting the religious feelings of a sect on his Facebook account under another name.
He also undertook not to repeat the same mistake in future. “The court is refraining from reproducing the content of the Facebook post made by the petitioner. Suffice to say that freedom of speech will not entitle a person to make derogatory remarks/posts against any community or gender,” Justice Sarin asserted.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Sarin observed this was the second petition. The reliance by his counsel on a coordinate Bench decision in another case was wholly misplaced. In that case, it was specifically noticed that the accused joined the probe after the first petition’s rejection and the police did not find it necessary to take him into actual custody. Material changes since the filing of the first petition were also noticed as the probe was complete and challan presented.
Justice Sarin added the state counsel, in the present case, specifically stated that the petitioner was absconding. Despite numerous raids, he was not been arrested. As such, the court did not find it to be a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Free speech doesn’t entitle person to make derogatory remarks: HC
{$excerpt:n}
