Supreme Court on Public Mischief and S.153A of IPC

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 258, wherein the Supreme Court quashed a case under S.153A of IPC that deals with promoting enmity between different groups and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

 

FACTS

 

The brief facts of the case are that there was a brawl wherein certain young boys were assaulted by masked and armed men. The Police registered a case, but the Appellant was not satisfied with the progress of the investigation and had commented on the Social Media Platform, Facebook, about the law-and-order situation in the State of Meghalaya alleging that:

 

a. Non-tribal persons are not treated properly in the State and have been assaulted time and again.  

b. Such assault is unacceptable and since 1979, trouble mongers have continued to trouble the people of Meghalaya in an unabated manner.

c.Dorbar Shnong was also called out to take cognizance of the matter.

d. It was asserted that non-tribals have equal rights to that of indigenous tribal people.

 

Basically, Dorbar Shnong means the traditional village institution of the villages of the Khasis, where governance and adjudication, is carried in accordance with customs and traditions. Thus, in the Facebook Post, the plight of the non-tribals was raised and an issue about the relevance of Dorbar Shnong of the area was also raised.

 

However, a Complaint against the Appellant was lodged before the Police. that her Facebook Post may instigate communal conflict. The Police registered a case under S. 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.) 500 (Punishment for Defamation) and 505 (Statements conducting to Public Mischief) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 153A talks about Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. S. 500 talks about Punishment for Defamation and S. 505 talks about Statements conducting to Public Mischief.

 

Aggrieved by this, the Appellant filed a Petition under S. 482 of CrPC for quashing of such FIR but the High Court was of the view that prima facie an offence under Section 153A IPC was made out. Thus, the matter traversed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

 

ARGUMENTS

 

Let us understand the contentions raised by the parties in this case.

 

It was contended by the Appellant that:

 

Firstly, the ingredients of the offence under S. 153A are not made out.

 

Secondly, the Facebook Post must be read in its entirety as it was simply highlighting the brutal attack on non-tribals and had no intention to promote any enmity.

 

Thirdly, the Appellant asserted her right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and was exercising her fundamental right to free speech.

 

Per contra the State contended that the comments of the Appellant have a tendency to provoke communal disharmony and no interference with the investigation in progress should be done.

 

Now, let us understand the observations by the Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court observed that the rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions.

 

Secondly, in view of the Court, under S. 153A, there must be an intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred and such intention is to be gathered from the language used in the impugned writing of the accused and its publication.

 

Thirdly, according to the Court, merely because certain passages and sentences are strongly worded does not mean that a charge is proved. Even under S. 505 that deals with public mischief, the alleged words used are to be judged from a point of view of a reasonable, strong-minded and courageous men.

 

Fourthly, the Court discussed that in order to interpret the level of ‘hatred’, instead of looking at the repugnancy of idea expressed, the Court should rather look at the detestation and vilification achieved by those words and their potential to expose the targeted groups or persons.

 

Fifthly, the Court observed that in the present case, the Facebook Post can be understood to highlight the discrimination that is done to the non-tribals and the requirement of immediate action in the case of assault to the non-tribal youth. The bare words of the Facebook Post, if taken at face value, would reveal that there was no intention to indulge any violence between any communities, and prima facie no offence is made out against the Appellant/Accused.

 

Sixthly, the Court opined that in the present case, due to turning of blind eye of the state authorities to the plight of migrants, legitimate exercise of the right to free speech was done by the Appellant to voice her anguish and seek justice for the non-tribals.

 

Therefore, it was held by the Court that no offence against the Appellant is made out and the FIR registered against her was quashed.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In conclusion, it could be said that the State Authorities must exercise due diligence before attempting to frame a person. The bare wordings of the statute are to be satisfied with prima facie evidence and in absence of such evidence, it cannot be contended that merely because something inconvenient was said by an individual, the same would be a reason enough to put him or her behind the bars. In fact, in cases of wrong prosecutions, the State should be asked to pay compensation or reparations to the aggrieved persons.