The Allahabad excessive court docket has quashed a First Data Report (FIR) filed towards a Twitter consumer who allegedly remarked that Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath had reworked the administration of the state into “jungle Raj.”
“Expressing dissent on regulation and order state of affairs within the state is a trademark of a constitutional liberal democracy like ours and the identical is constitutionally protected underneath Article 19 of the Structure (proper of freedom of speech and expression),” the court docket mentioned in its order,which was handed on November 23.
A division bench comprising justice Pankaj Naqvi and justice Vivek Agarwal allowed a writ petition filed by Yashwant Singh, who allegedly made the remarks towards UP CM on his Twitter deal with. It quashed an FIR dated August 2, registered towards the petitioner underneath Part 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code and Part 66-D (offence of dishonest by personation by utilizing laptop useful resource) of the Data Know-how Act, 2008 at Bhognipur police station in Rama Bai Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh.
The FIR alleged that Singh used his Twitter deal with to comment that the chief minister of the state had reworked the state right into a “jungle raj”. It additionally referred to abductions, calls for for ransom and murders, the FIR mentioned.
The petitioner challenged the FIR, contending that he had been effectively inside his constitutional proper to freedom of speech underneath Article 19. Mere dissent doesn’t quantity to criminality and the FIR has been lodged solely to coerce him to cease expressing dissent towards the state authorities, the petitioner argued.
Quashing the FIR and the consequential proceedings towards the petitioner, the court docket mentioned: “We, after analysing the above provisions relating to allegations made within the FIR, don’t discover even remotely a fee of offence underneath Part 66-D, because the mentioned provision pertains to dishonest by personation. It isn’t the case of prosecution that whereas committing the overt act, the petitioner both tweeted utilizing different’s Twitter deal with…No offence underneath Part 66-D of IT Act is made out. Insofar as Part 500 IPC (defamation) is anxious, the identical can be not made out, because the alleged tweet can’t be mentioned to fall inside the mischief of defamation.”