Every once in a while the Supreme Court delivers an enlightened judgment that restores the peoples’ faith in the judiciary. Each time a judgment that upholds the cherished principles of the Constitution is delivered, democracy gets a boost. At a time when the democracy index of this country is on a downslide, this ruling has set a precedent that the judiciary is seized of this country’s predicament and is determined to stem the rot. By quashing a criminal case registered against the editor of this newspaper in connection with a Facebook post of July last year decrying the systemic violence against non-tribals in Meghalaya, the apex Court has given a strong message that those who critique the government and police for their failure to uphold the rule of law cannot be considered to have committed a criminal offence. The apex court observed that the Facebook post was directed against the apathy shown by the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, the Director General of Police and the Dorbar Shnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits who attacked the non-tribals youngsters inside a basket ball court.
The Facebook post, the apex court further observed is an attempt to highlight the discrimination against non tribals in the State of Meghalaya. The Court took cognisance of the fact that the Facebook post had made it abundantly clear that criminal elements have no community and immediate action has to be taken against persons who had indulged in the brutal attack on non-tribal youngsters playing basketball. Perhaps it is for the first time in the history of Meghalaya that the Supreme Court was given an idea of the real situation obtaining in the State. Hence the Court further observed that the Facebook post read in its entirety pleads for equality of non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya. The Court ruled out any attempt by “the appellant to promote class/community hatred,” which the FIR filed by the Dorbar Shnong, Lawsohtun had claimed. The apex Court termed that allegation a ‘figment of imagination.’
Another important observation of the apex court was that disapprobation of governmental inaction cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hatred between different communities. This is a stinging indictment on the ruling of the Meghalaya High Court which had refused to quash the FIR against the editor. The crux of the ruling is the parting remark of the Supreme Court that ‘free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order.
This landmark ruling has upheld the right to freedom of expression upon which hinges media freedom in a democracy.
