Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim Heave a Sigh of Relief as Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Her Over Her Face Book Post.

(Judicial Quest News Network)

The Supreme quashed the criminal case registered against Editor of Shillong Times Patricia Mukhim, a Padma Shree Awardee besides being a senior Journalist in relation to a Facebook post by her in which she spoke the truth without fear and demanded action against perpetrators of hate crime.

The Judgement was delivered by a bench of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao and Ravindra Bhat  on a plea filed by Mukhim, against the Meghalya High Court’s order dismissing her plea to quash criminal proceedings.

The crux of the matter is on 03-07-2020 while nine non-tribal boys of Shillong had gone to a place called Lawshotun to play basketball, around 20 to 25 unidentified boys assailed these youths with iron rods and sticks thereby seriously injuring some of these youths and a criminal case was registered against the unidentified persons.

The petitioner (Ms.patricia Mukhim) being a senior Journalist and responsible member of the civil society made a post on Facebook condemning such atrocities on non- tribal in Shillong since 1979 and requested the State administration to take stringent action as per law against the culprits and categorically posted that “we hope that these will not be yet another case lost in the police files”.

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, appeared and argued for Mukhim that there was “assuaging of feelings of a community which hasa been attacked brutally”

Vrinda Submitted that on 06-07-2020, the Dorbar Shnog of lawsohtun filed an FIR with superintendent of police, East Khasi hils District.

It is submitted that contents of the petitioner’s post were deliberately edited and words were replaced before the police.

Instead of placing the entire content of the post only one extract was selectively placed before the police, Grover alleged.

Further it was submitted that the intention of the post was not to create any disharmony, but was in fact precisely the opposite. The post did not call upon two communities or groups, but called upon the Chief Minister and Director General of Police instead, while condemning the atrocities committed on the minority.

The judgement states that “In the instant case, applying the principles laid downby this Court as mentioned above, the question that arises for our consideration is whether the Facebook post-dated 04.07.2020 was intentionally made for promoting class/community hatred and has the tendency to provoke Enmity between two communities. A close scrutiny of the Facebook post would indicate that the agony of the Appellant 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-tribal youngsters. The Appellant referred to the attacks on nontribal in 1979. At the most, the Facebook post can be understood to ghlight the discrimination against nontribal in the State of Meghalaya. However, the Appellant made it 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. The Facebook post read in its entirety pleads for equality of non-tribal in the State of Meghalaya. In our understanding, there was no intention on the part of the Appellant to promote class/community hatred. As there is no attempt made by the Appellant to incite people belonging to a community to indulge in any violence, the basic ingredients of the offence under Sections 153 A and 505 (1) (c) have not been made out. Where allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR is liable to be quashed7.

 The Petitioner had submitted that she is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged and the Petitioner is being victimised for speaking the truth without fear and demanding legal action against the perpetrators of hate crime that have blessings of their political masters.

According to Grover, the portrayal of skirmish between two groups is not prohibited and is permitted. Therefore if there is any a controversy between two groups, any journalist would write about it.

She relied upon several judgments of the Supreme Court including the case of Manzoor Sayyed Khan Vs State of Maharahtra, and how the related to section 153 A was interpreted by the Court. She further stated that in the case of Ramesh Vs Union of India that dealt with the issue around TVserial Tamas it was held that TV serial Tamas did not depict communal violence and therefore would not fall under section 153 A. even in the recent judgement in the case of Amis Devgan judgement the threshold and bar as to what speech would not be protected was clarified.

It is further that what needs to be seen is what was said in the post and what was the intent and purpose of saying that. She had clarified that in the impugned post, attention of the stature Authorities including the CM and DGP was drawn by the petitioner was fulfilling her responsibility as a Senior Journalist and a responsible citizen.

“I’m exhorting everyone to rise beyond their caste and communities. I am not talking about any 2 communities here! I am fulfilling my responsibility as a senior journalist and as a responsible citizen. “Vrinda Grover stated.

Advocate Tripathi appearing for the state had added that action was being taken and everything was being done. FIR was being filed.

Advocate Tripathi had submitted that it is expected of a Journalist of that repute to ascertain the facts before writing something, that too when she has so many followers, A communal colour was given to an incident which was a small scuffle between two guys, which the police was already investigating.

“Mr.Tripathi please doesn’t go all over the place. Just tell us why ingredients of 153A are not made out. We know we have limited jurisdiction in the case” the Bench had observed.

Petitioner had contended in the petition that it was a call for justice- for action according to law, which every citizen has a right to expect and articulate. Disapprobation of government inaction cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hared between different communities.

“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. Supreme Court Observed.

The test adopted by the Court is to take allegations of complaint as they are without seeing defence of the accused.

If the allegations don’t make an offence under the section then the FIR is quashed.

The plea was file by Advocate Prasanna. S. and drafted By Advocate Soukit Banerjee.