From Our Special Correspondent
NEW DELHI, Feb 16: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment in a plea filed by the Editor of The Shillong Times, Patricia Mukhim against the Meghalaya High Court’s order dismissing her plea to quash criminal proceedings against her for a Facebook post decrying violence against non-tribal people in the state.
A bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat reserved the judgment.
A case on the said post was filed against Mukhim, alleging offence under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc,), 500 (punishment for defamation) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code.
Senior advocate Vrinda Grover, arguing for Mukhim stated that there was “no assuaging of feelings of a community which has been attacked brutally”.
“My post is only making a comment that non-tribal minority boys have been targeted violently. This is the only way harmony can be promoted. It has to be seen what the intent of my post was. I am drawing the attention of the Chief Minister and police towards the attack. My aim was to highlight the criminal element present in the society. I am performing my role as a responsible citizen,” Grover said quoting Mukhim.
The advocate added that there was no incitement to offence pertaining to Mukhim’s post.
“Would it be in public interest to continue with charges against me? The Babulal Rao case was completely erroneously cited in my case. I am not taking recourse to extraordinary remedy as I approached the High Court first,” Grover said on behalf of Mukhim.
Advocate Abhijit Manu Tripathi, arguing for the state of Meghalaya, submitted that a press release was issued post the incident and that arrests were also made. “Where did the information originate that the masked attackers were allegedly tribal boys? There should have been verification of facts before putting out such a post especially when she is reputed and has so many followers,” the state argued.
However, Grover maintained that there was no communal incident after the Facebook post. Justice Rao noted that the counsel of the state of Meghalaya “was wrong.”
“For quashing an FIR under Section 482 CrPC, allegations are taken into account and if allegations don’t make an offence under the sections invoked, then an FIR is quashed. We get that she has to be more careful than a normal citizen. But the trial is different,” said the judge.
The plea before the Supreme Court states that Mukhim is facing persecution for “speaking the truth and seeking enforcement of rule of law against perpetrators of hate crime, in exercise of her fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution.
The senior journalist averred that a plain reading of her Facebook post makes it clear that the intent and purpose of the post “is to appeal for impartial enforcement of rule of law; equal treatment before the law of all citizens; condemnation of targeted violence against members of a minority group; an end to impunity for violence and thereby ensure peace and harmony between communities and groups.”
The plea further stated that the offences under Section 500 and 505(c) IPC, being non-cognisable, cannot be investigated and prosecuted vide registration of an FIR in view of the statutory bar against such prosecution.