JUSTICE, JUDICIARY, FREEDOM

Justice, judiciary, and freedom are foundational pillars of any democracy, intrinsically connected to uphold the rule of law and ensure societal harmony. While justice embodies fairness and equity, the judiciary serves as its guardian, safeguarding freedom against the encroachments of power. Together, they create a system where individual liberty thrives without compromising the collective good.

Abhyudaya Mishra V. Kunal Kamra (2020) (Supreme Court)(Tweets case):

In the case of Abhyudaya Mishra V. Kunal Kamra the issues revolve around free speech, contempt of court, judicial accountability and violation of Article 19(1)(a). The Respondent in the said case, is a stand-up comedian, wherein he posted tweets on twitter criticizing the Supreme Court of India for its handling of case involving journalist Arnab Goswami’s bail plea in 2020. His tweets were critical of judiciary, with interpretations on attacking on impartiality of the institution and its judges.

The Petitioners argued that Kamra’s tweets scandalized the court and lowered its authority, amounting to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Kunal Kamra stood by his statements and chose not to apologize, arguing that his tweets were intended as satire and fell under the domain of free speech protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. He also claimed that satire and criticism of public institutions is essential for a healthy democracy.

The Court dismissed the Petition by recognizing the importance of free speech:

1. The court observed that freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, including the contempt of court exception. However, the judiciary emphasized the need for tolerance towards criticism in a democracy

2. The court held that humor and satire, even when targeted at the judiciary, are permissible within reasonable limits. In this case as well, the tweets were critical but did not obstruct the administration of justice. And the judiciary is capable of handling criticism.

By restricting the individuals to not criticize the actions of the institutions, it restricts the freedom of an individual in various ways. The ability to criticize freely is important in today’s time, and that as well includes criticizing the judiciary. If there are restrictions relating to the same, there will be no institutions or persons accountable for arbitrary actions.

While the judiciary must maintain its authority and dignity, it is also essential that it remains open to criticism to ensure it serves the public interest. Such criticism not only helps in holding the judiciary accountable but also strengthens democratic governance by ensuring that power is not unchecked, which indeed makes a just society where rights and freedoms are respected.

Kunal Kamra V. Union of India (2024) (Bombay High Court)(IT Amendments):

In the case of Kunal Kamra v. Union of India, the Bombay High Court examined the constitutional validity of the 2023 amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. These amendments empowered the Central Government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify “fake, false, or misleading” information related to its affairs on social media platforms. Comedian Kunal Kamra, along with organizations, argued that they infringed upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The court striked down the amendments of the IT Act.

The court held that the possibility of content being flagged by government-appointed FCUs could deter individuals from expressing their views freely, leading to self-censorship as well as were violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(a), as it imposed unreasonable restrictions.

The amendments were without objective criteria, which would lead to arbitrary censorship which would indeed lead to a chilling effect on free speech. If the government would be allowed to unilaterally flag content, then it would also concern a misuse for various purposes. Additionally, it would give arbitrary power to government to decide whether a particular content was “fake” which violated Article 14.

STAND BY GOVERNMENT:

1. The State argued that the judiciary is a cornerstone of democracy and must be safeguarded from undue criticism that undermines public confidence. Criticisms targeting the judiciary, if made irresponsibly or in bad faith, could erode the institution’s authority and the public’s trust in its impartiality.

2. The State emphasized on the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which aims to prevent actions that scandalize or lower the dignity of courts. It contended that Kamra’s statements and tweets amounted to criminal contempt by attempting to undermine the judiciary’s credibility and questioning its impartiality.

3. While recognizing the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the State argued that this right is not absolute. Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions, including for maintaining the dignity of the judiciary

4. The State contended that Kamra’s comments were not constructive criticism but rather scandalous remarks aimed at ridiculing the judiciary and not in bona fide criticism.

5. The State highlighted the potential negative impact of Kamra’s remarks on public perception. It would be a dangerous precedent.

SOCIAL MEDIA DEFAMATION:

Swara Bhasker Case (2020)

The case revolves around the issue of alleged defamation on twitter. Actress Swara Bhasker faced legal notices for comments made on Twitter about certain events, which were interpreted as defamatory by some individuals. Swara Bhasker responded to the defamation suit, asserting her right to free speech and clarifying that her comments were expressions of opinion, not defamatory. There is a difference between critizing or commenting on a certain happening or stating defamatory statements. Bhasker’s case highlighted the tensions between free expression on social media and the reputational harm that can result from public statements. It also highlighted the need for balance between the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and protecting individuals from reputational damage.

JUSTICE DENIED CASES:

Salman Khan V. State of Maharashtra (2015):

In Salman Khan hit and run case, he was accused of driving his car onto a pavement in Bandra, killing one person and injuring four others who were sleeping there. The key allegations revolved around rash and negligent driving under the influence of alcohol. The charges were enhanced to Section 304 IPC (Section 105 in BNS) from Section 304A IPC (Section 106 in BNS). The Bombay High Court granted Salman Khan bail and acquitted him in the same.

The Court held that:

1. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Eyewitness testimonies, including that of Ravindra Patil, were deemed unreliable due to contradictions and inconsistencies.

2. The defense argued that Salman Khan’s driver, Ashok Singh, was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court noted that this possibility was not adequately rebutted by the prosecution.

3. The court ruled that the evidence regarding Salman Khan’s intoxication was insufficient. The delay in conducting the blood alcohol test and the lack of corroborative evidence weakened the prosecution’s claim.

It highlighted systemic challenges in India’s judicial and investigative processes, including delays, evidence tampering, and potential biases. The key witness to the incident Ravindra Patil, the police bodyguard, was also removed from duty and he passed away in a few years in 2007 who testified that Salman Khan was the one who was behind the wheels during the time of the incident. During the final stage of the case, suddenly, the driver of Salman Khan claimed that he was the one driving and not Salman Khan.

Due to all the inconsistencies followed by the Court despite significant evidence and witness testimonies, there could not be justice to all the victims in the said case, and it only saved the actor from going behind the bar.

Sections: 1. Section 304 IPC Culpable homicide not amounting to murder: गगग गगगगगग गगगगग गग गगग गगग (Section 105 in BNS) 2. Section 304A IPC causing death by negliegence: गगगगगगगग गग गगग गग गगगग (Section 106 in BNS)

Aryan Shah Rukh Khan V. The Union of India (2021):

In Aryan Khan drug case, he was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) during a raid on a luxury cruise ship on October 2, 2021, where an alleged drug party was taking place. The NCB claimed that Aryan and several others were involved in the possession, consumption, and trafficking of narcotic substances. Post the arrest, he applied for bail in the Bombay High Court and subsequently, the Bombay High Court granted him bail.

The Court held that

1. There was insufficient evidence against him. NCB initially argued that Aryan was involved in a broader network, but they failed to provide strong evidence to back this claim.

2. The Court pointed out that mere possession of small quantities of drugs or being part of a “conspiracy” without direct involvement does not justify the accusations. He was not in possession of drugs, and no medical evidence indicated consumption.

3. The Court dismissed the Whatsapp chats as insufficient evidence, stating they did not indicate any conspiracy or drug-related offense.

Sections:

1. Section 8(c) of NDPS- Prohibition of certain operations

2. Section 27 of NDPS – Punishment for consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances

3. Section 29 of NDPS – Abetment and criminal conspiracy

Rhea Chakraborty V. Union of India (2020):

In Rhea Chakroborty case, it initially started after Late Sushant Singh Rajput’s family lodged an FIR in Patna, Bihar, accusing Rhea Chakraborty and others of abetment to suicide, criminal breach of trust, and financial irregularities. Simultaneously, she was also investigated by NCB. The NCB arrested Rhea Chakraborty in connection with alleged procurement and consumption of drugs. She was subsequently granted bail by the Bombay High Court.

The Court held that no drugs were recovered from her possession. Similarly, Court found no substantial evidence to suggest that she was directly involved in drug trafficking or financing a drug syndicate. The substances involved were of small quantities, not commercial. Thus, stringent bail conditions were not applied.

PRINT OF THE BAIL

Sections:

1. Section 8(c) of NDPS- Prohibition of certain operations

2. Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS- Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis

3. Section 28 of NDPS- Punishment for attempts to commit offences

4. Section 29 of NDPS – Abetment and criminal conspiracy

Tukaram and Anr V. State of Maharashtra (1978) (Mathura rape case):

In the unfortunate but known case of Mathura, it involved the alleged custodial rape of a 16-year-old tribal girl, Mathura, by two policemen, Tukaram and Ganpat, at the Desaiganj police station in Maharashtra in 1972. Mathura had been brought to the police station following a complaint by her brother about her elopement with her boyfriend. The incident led to a legal battle that culminated in the Supreme Court acquitting the accused policemen in 1978.

The Court held:

1. No evidence of resistance by Mathura, concluding that the absence of injuries suggested consent. The judgment controversially equated the absence of injuries with implied consent, disregarding the psychological impact of intimidation and power dynamics.

2. The Court stated that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mathura was subjected to forcible intercourse. It relied more on the medical report, which did not reveal significant physical injuries or signs of violent resistance.

Sections:

1. Section 34 of IPC: Common intention

2. Section 376 of IPC (Section 64 BNS): Punishment for rape

Tarun Tejpal V. State of Goa (2021)

In Tarun Tejpal case, it addressed allegations of sexual assault in the workplace, media ethics, and the importance of a fair trial. Tarun Tejpal, a well-known journalist was accused of sexually assaulting a junior colleague in 2013 during an event organized by the magazine in Goa. A trial court in Goa acquitted Tejpal in May 2021, citing inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony and lack of corroborative evidence. The said order was appealed in the Bombay High Court, and the Court upheld the order of trial court.

The judgment was criticized for its detailed questioning of the complainant’s character, actions, and motivations, which some saw as perpetuating victim-blaming stereotypes. The complainant’s testimony was central to the prosecution’s case. The trial court found inconsistencies in her statements and raised doubts about the timeline and details of the alleged incident. This case raised concern regarding the treatment to sexual assault survivors in the process and barriers to achieving justice. The complainant’s private messages and actions were extensively scrutinized and included in the judgment. This was criticized as a violation of her privacy and an unnecessary focus on her personal life, which diverted attention from the core issue of whether the assault occurred.

The Additional Session Court in Goa held:

1. The court found contradictions in the complainant’s statements regarding the sequence of events and the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault.

2. Emails and messages exchanged between the complainant and Tejpal, as well as CCTV footage, were examined. The court noted that the evidence did not conclusively support the prosecution’s narrative.

3. The court questioned the delay in formally reporting the incident and highlighted that this created doubts about the veracity of the claims.

4. The court scrutinized the complainant’s behaviour after the alleged assault, including her interactions with Tejpal, and concluded that it did not align with the prosecution’s version of events.

Sections:

1. Section 354 IPC: Assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.

2. Section 354A IPC(Section 75 BNS) : Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment

3. Section 354B IPC (Section 76 BNS): Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe

4. Section 341 IPC (Section 126 BNS): Punishment for wrongful restraint

5. Section 342 IPC(Section 127 BNS):: Punishment for wrongful confinement

6. Section 376(2)(f) IPC (Section 64 BNS): Punishment for rape for being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman;

7. Section 376(2)(k) IPC: Punishment for rape for being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman;

Vimala Chorotiya & Ors V. State of Maharashtra (2024):

In the case of Vimala Chorotiya, the spouses of the Petitioners demised during performing their acts performing of manual scavenging. The Petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 based on Government Resolution issued by Social Justice and Special Assistance Department of the Government of Maharashtra. According to the Resolution, in the event of death of scavengers, the head of private sector or area is required to pay the compensation.

The Bombay High Court directed the Collector of Mumbai Suburban district to pay the compensation.

SHARAD PAWAR V. AJIT ANANTRAO PAWAR (2024)

The legal dispute between Sharad Pawar and Ajit Anantrao Pawar revolved on the rightful ownership and use of the Nationalist Congress Party’s (NCP) name and its traditional “clock” symbol. This internal party conflict had implications for the Maharashtra Assembly elections.

There was a split between the party, following the split the Election Commission of India recognized the Ajit Pawar faction as the legitimate NCP, granting it the “clock” symbol. In response, the Sharad Pawar faction was provisionally assigned the symbol of a man blowing a tutari (a traditional trumpet).

TIMELINE OF THE EVENTS:

March 2024: ECI decision.

March 2024: The Supreme Court permitted the Ajit Pawar faction to use the “clock” symbol for the upcoming Lok Sabha and Maharashtra Assembly elections, with specific conditions.

April 3, 2024: Sharad Pawar faction approached Supreme Court for non-compliance by Ajit Pawar faction.

April 4, 2024: The Supreme Court reiterated its directive, emphasizing the necessity for the Ajit Pawar faction to include disclaimers in all campaign materials.

November 6, 2024: During a Supreme Court hearing, Ajit Pawar’s counsel assured the Court that within 36 hours, disclaimers would be published in prominent newspapers, including Marathi dailies, stating that the use of the “clock” symbol by the NCP remains a sub-judice matter.

Sharad Pawar claims in Supreme Court and orders: Sharad Pawar’s faction appealed the ECI’s decision in the Supreme Court, seeking to prevent Ajit Pawar from using the “clock” symbol, citing potential voter confusion due to the symbol’s long-standing association with Sharad Pawar. The Supreme Court permitted Ajit Pawar faction to use the “clock” symbol for the 2024 elections but mandated that all campaign materials include a clear disclaimer stating that the symbol’s allocation was under judicial review.

Allegations of non-compliance: However, Ajit Pawar faction did not comply with the orders of the Court. Sharad Pawar faction alleged that Ajit Pawar faction failed to include the required disclaimers in their campaign materials, potentially misleading voters. They presented evidence, including advertisements and social media posts, lacking the mandated disclaimers.

Supreme Court directives:

1. Ajit Pawar faction was ordered to file a fresh undertaking, committing to meticulous compliance with the Court’s earlier directions.

2. The Court mandated Ajit Pawar faction publish prominent disclaimers in newspapers, especially local Marathi ones, clarifying the sub judice status of the “clock” symbol.

3. The Court barred Ajit Pawar faction from using Sharad Pawar’s photos or videos in their campaign materials, emphasizing the need for both factions to respect voter intelligence and focus on their respective campaigns.

Order 04.04.2024

“(i) The petitioner, his party’s office bearers, workers and supporters shall abide by the directions contained in paragraph 3(iii) of the above mentioned order, in terms whereof the petitioner has been permitted to use the name “Nationalist Congress Party – Sharadchandra Pawar” with the “Man Blowing Turha” as the party symbol.

(ii) The petitioner will also ensure that his workers and supporters do not act in defiance to the directions referred to above and they do not use the symbol ‘clock’.”

Order 19.03.2024

“(iii) It is directed that the applicant/petitioner shall be entitled to use the name “Nationalist Congress Party – Sharadchandra Pawar” for the purpose of contesting the ensuing Parliamentary and State Assembly Elections along with the symbol of “Man Blowing Turha”. Consequently, the Election Commission of India as well as all the State Election Commissions are directed to provisionally recognise the “Nationalist Congress Party – Sharadchandra Pawar” along with the “Man Blowing Turha” as a reserved symbol for that political party.

(vi) The respondents are further directed to issue a public notice in the newspapers with Marathi, Hindi and English editions, notifying that the allocation of the “clock” symbol is sub-judice before this Court and the respondents have been permitted to use the same subject to the final outcome of these proceedings. Such a declaration shall be incorporated in every pamphlet, advertisement, audio, or video clips to be issued on behalf of the respondents.”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top