Anticipatory bail denied, Supreme Court makes significant statement on the right to freedom of speech
The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a significant ruling, stating that freedom of speech knows no bounds. The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 24-year-old chartered accountancy student from Bengaluru. He had posted objectionable posts about the Prime Minister and his mother through a parody account called “Jawaharlal Nehru Satire” on the social media platform X. The court advised the student to seek relief in the Gujarat High Court.
The Supreme Court stated, “Those who abuse freedom of speech should not be granted discretionary relief by the courts.” The court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR filed by the Ahmedabad police. The court also refused to grant the student protection from arrest or anticipatory bail so he could participate in the investigation.
The accused student’s lawyer stated that his client had merely questioned a post he had not created. The lawyer also argued that because of this, he was being accused of insulting a woman’s modesty. He stated that the Gujarat police went to his home without following any legal procedure and detained him at a Bengaluru police station.
The lawyer further stated that the police were threatening to arrest him. The student was willing to cooperate with the investigation but sought protection from arrest. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi said, “You have no remorse or regret for the derogatory words used against her (the Prime Minister’s mother).” The lawyer stated that he was just a student and regretted his post. He pleaded with the Supreme Court to protect him from arrest. The Supreme Court reiterated, “A petitioner who abuses the right to freedom of speech should not be granted discretionary relief from the court.”
What is the matter?
A resident of Gujarat filed a police complaint on November 7. The complaint stated that the accused had posted derogatory material against the Prime Minister and his mother, damaging their dignity and reputation, and tarnishing India’s image in the international community. The police filed an FIR and went to Bengaluru to question the accused. Following the filing of the FIR, X blocked the account.
The petitioner alleged that the Ahmedabad police, in connivance with the Bengaluru police, violated his fundamental rights (Articles 14, 19, and 21). They illegally took him to the Cyber Crime Police Station and threatened him with arrest. He was detained for hours and then released, but was asked to join the investigation in Ahmedabad. He expressed fear that he would be arrested upon arrival.
And a great lesson for the public
This case raises an important question about the limits of freedom of expression. The court stated that any right must be exercised responsibly. Even posts made through a parody account, if deemed offensive or insulting, could be subject to legal action. The court declined to grant direct relief to the student, but allowed him the opportunity to present his case before the lower court. This shows that the law does not tolerate any kind of abuse, even if it happens on social media.
