Court Finds No Offence in Malviya's Social Media Reaction to Minister's Remarks on Sanatana Dharma
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench quashed the FIR filed against Amit Malviya, the National President of the BJP IT wing, for allegedly inciting hate speech through his social media post. The FIR was lodged under Sections 153, 153A, 504, and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after Malviya's reaction to a controversial speech by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, who equated the eradication of "Sanathana Dharma" with diseases like dengue and malaria.
Justice S. Srimathy presided over the case and concluded that Malviya's reaction did not constitute an offence under the cited sections. The court emphasized that Malviya merely questioned the minister's speech, which the court viewed as a reaction rather than instigation. The judgment highlighted that Malviya’s post did not demonstrate mens rea, a critical element for the alleged offences, and did not incite animosity between communities.
The court noted that the FIR against Malviya seemed manifestly vexatious and an abuse of the legal process. It criticized the investigation's political overtones and stressed the need for officials to remain impartial. The judgment also pointed out the inconsistency in legal actions, where the minister's speech, deemed by the court as hate speech, did not attract similar scrutiny.
Justice Srimathy underscored the importance of assessing overall circumstances and background in such cases, referencing various precedents, including the Supreme Court's directive on hate speech. The ruling questioned the selective application of law enforcement and called for equitable legal action against all parties involved in hate speech.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in balancing free speech and public order, especially in politically sensitive contexts.
Bottom Line:
FIR quashed against petitioner for alleged hate speech on social media; Court holds petitioner's reaction to minister's speech does not constitute an offence under Sections 153, 153A, 504, and 505(1)(b) IPC.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 153, 153A, 504, 505(1)(b) IPC
