Allahabad High Court: In a bail application by a journalist to release him on bail during the pendency of the trial for offences under Section 386, 389, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Manju Rani Chauhan, J. refused to grant bail for propagating ‘hate speech’ against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
In the First Information Report, it was alleged that the journalist was accused of allegedly demanding payments from the complainant, Vice President of the Purvanchal Truck Owners Association, and threatened to publish articles against him. The journalist allegedly threatened the complainant with messages and verbally abused him.
It was also alleged that he used social media as a means to spread hate speech against public figures including PM Narendra Modi and CM Yogi Adityanath and made derogatory remarks against religious figures.
Reflecting the balance between the duty of journalists and exploitation of the social media platform, the Court said that if someone is engaged in corrupt practices, the appropriate course of action is to bring forth the information to the public domain, allowing transparency and accountability to prevail and it is the duty of journalists and publishers to disseminate information based on facts to the public, empowering them to make informed decisions. However, the Court said that it is entirely unacceptable for publishers to exploit their platform for personal gain, resorting to coercive tactics under the guise of publication. The Court stated that “the act of leveraging publication as a tool for coercion not only undermines the integrity of journalism but also erodes public trust in the media, which plays a pivotal role in upholding democratic values.” Further, the Court said that exploiting one’s position in the media to extract benefits or coerce individuals through threats tarnishes the integrity of journalism and such actions not only betray the trust bestowed upon the media by the public but also undermine the very essence of democratic principles.
“The media’s role as a guardian of truth and accountability is essential in ensuring the health and vitality of democracy.”
On the question of personal remarks and abusive language against any individual, particularly public figures, the Court said that it is reprehensible and antithetical to the principles of civil discourse. The Court said that dissent and criticism are essential components of robust governance, in a democratic society but they must be expressed in a manner that upholds dignity and respect for all individuals. Resorting to derogatory language and personal attacks serves only inflames tensions and undermines the fabric of civil society. The Court said that the right of the citizens to express grievances and concerns regarding governmental actions or policies, must be conducted with a sense of responsibility and decorum. The Court explained that respect for the dignity of individuals, regardless of their position or status, is paramount in upholding the integrity of civil discourse.
“Dissent serves as a catalyst for critical reflection and course correction, prompting policymakers to reconsider decisions in light of public feedback.”
The Court explained that a clear distinction must be drawn between legitimate dissent with the government and constructive criticism, and the propagation of abusive language and hatred. The propagation of abusive language and hatred represents a stark departure from the principles of democratic discourse. The Court said that it is incumbent upon all members of society, including journalists, activists, and public officials, to uphold the principles of civil discourse and reject the proliferation of abusive language and hatred.
Shedding light on religious sentiments, the Court said that they hold immense significance for millions of citizens, and any act that seeks to denigrate or insult these sentiments is not only morally reprehensible but also a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The Court said that religious sentiments hold profound significance for millions of citizens, shaping their beliefs, practices, and cultural identities. In acknowledging the importance of these sentiments, it becomes evident that any act aimed at denigrating or insulting them constitutes a grave affront to the principles of tolerance and respect. Such actions not only undermine the sanctity of religious beliefs but also violate the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion and expression for all individuals.
In the matter at hand, the Court said that the journalist in question failed to uphold the ethical standards expected of journalists and instead of serving the public interest, own personal gain was prioritized at the expense of journalistic integrity and democratic values. Therefore, considering the gravity of the allegations, the Court refused to grant bail for so blatantly abusing the position of trust and influence.
[Amit Maurya v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 898, Order dated: 13-03-2024]
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Not worth commenting on this subject bcos courts in India r biased.