Supreme Court quashes FIR for promoting enmity: Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya (2021)

Date of the Judgment: March 25, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 174

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can voicing concerns about discrimination and governmental inaction be considered a criminal offense? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Facebook post by Patricia Mukhim, a renowned journalist. The Court had to determine whether her post, which criticized the state’s handling of an attack on non-tribal individuals, amounted to promoting enmity between communities. The bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

On July 3, 2020, a group of about 25 unidentified individuals assaulted non-tribal youngsters playing basketball in Lawsohtun, Meghalaya, using iron rods and sticks. This incident led to the registration of a crime at Laban Police Station under Sections 326, 307, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The injured were hospitalized, and some suspects were arrested. The police issued a press release on July 4, 2020, appealing for public assistance in identifying the perpetrators and warning against communal disharmony.

Following the press release, on July 4, 2020, Patricia Mukhim, the Appellant, posted on Facebook expressing her concern about the incident. She criticized the government and police for their inaction, highlighted the historical attacks on non-tribals in Meghalaya, and questioned the role of the local Dorbar Shnong (village council). She emphasized that criminal elements have no community and called for justice. On July 6, 2020, the Dorbar Shnong filed a complaint against Mukhim, alleging that her post incited communal tension and defamation. Subsequently, an FIR was registered against her under Sections 153A, 500, and 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Appellant, Patricia Mukhim, filed a Criminal Petition No. 9 of 2020 in the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong, seeking to quash the FIR registered against her. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition on November 10, 2020. The High Court was of the view that the Appellant’s Facebook post, which referred to attacks on non-tribals by tribals, had the potential to create a rift between the two communities. The court held that there was a prima facie case for an offense under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Legal Framework

The FIR against the Appellant was registered under Sections 153A and 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These sections deal with offenses related to promoting enmity between different groups and making statements conducing to public mischief.

Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“505. Statements conducing to public mischief.—(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report, —(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

These provisions are intended to maintain public order and prevent communal disharmony. However, they must be balanced against the fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Appellant contended that the ingredients of the offense under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not met.
• It was argued that the Facebook post should be read in its entirety, highlighting the brutal attack on non-tribals and calling for action against the culprits.
• The Appellant submitted that there was no intention to promote enmity or hatred between communities.
• Reliance was placed on judgments of the Supreme Court to argue that the comment should be judged from the standpoint of a reasonable, strong-minded, and courageous person.
• The Appellant asserted her right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, arguing that the criminal prosecution would have a chilling effect on her fundamental right.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Appellant, being a renowned journalist, should be more responsible in making public comments.
• It was submitted that the Appellant’s comment had the tendency to provoke communal disharmony.
• The State contended that the High Court was right in dismissing the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and requested the Supreme Court not to interfere as the investigation was in progress.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the Facebook post dated 04.07.2020 was intentionally made for promoting class/community hatred and has the tendency to provoke enmity between two communities.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The Court used this case to emphasize that the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea (intention) to succeed under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court used this to support its view that the Facebook post should be read in its entirety and not in isolated passages.
• Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. [CITATION]: The Court used this case to highlight the requirement of mens rea and the involvement of at least two groups or communities for the offenses under Sections 153A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Ramesh v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court applied this standard to evaluate the Facebook post, emphasizing that the test should not be that of a weak or vacillating mind.
• Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India & Ors. [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to incorporate the three tests for interpreting “hatred” in hate speech cases, focusing on whether a reasonable person would view the expression as exposing a group to hatred.
• Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott [CITATION]: The Court adopted the three tests outlined in this case to determine whether the speech in question constituted hate speech.
• State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to justify quashing the FIR as the allegations did not prima facie constitute an offense.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Freedom of Speech: The Court emphasized the importance of free speech and expression as a fundamental right. It noted that this right is not absolute but should not be stifled unless it has the tendency to affect public order.
• Absence of Intent to Promote Enmity: The Court found that the Appellant’s Facebook post, when read in its entirety, did not demonstrate an intent to promote enmity or hatred between communities. Instead, the post was seen as a call for justice and a criticism of governmental inaction.
• Reasonable Person Standard: The Court applied the standard of a reasonable, strong-minded, and courageous person in evaluating the Facebook post. This standard ensured that the post was not judged based on the sensitivities of a weak or vacillating mind.
• Context of the Post: The Court took into account the context in which the post was made, noting that it was a response to a brutal attack on non-tribal individuals and the perceived inaction of the authorities.
• Lack of Incitement to Violence: The Court observed that there was no attempt by the Appellant to incite violence or any other offense by any community.

The Court concluded that the Facebook post was a legitimate expression of concern and a call for justice, rather than an attempt to promote communal disharmony.

Fact:Law:

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the Facebook post made by the Appellant did not constitute an offense under Sections 153A and 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the post was a call for justice and highlighted discrimination against non-tribals, rather than promoting hatred between communities. The Court observed that the intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is a necessary element of the offense under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that this was not present in the Appellant’s post.

The Court stated, “A close scrutiny of the Facebook post would indicate that the agony of the Appellant was directed against the apathy shown by the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, the Director General of Police and the Dorbar Shnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits who attacked the non-tribals youngsters.”

The Court further noted, “The Facebook post read in its entirety pleads for equality of non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya. In our understanding, there was no intention on the part of the Appellant to promote class/community hatred.”

The Court also highlighted that, “Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order.”

The Court concluded that the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value, did not constitute an offense. Therefore, the FIR was quashed.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of free speech and expression in a democratic society.
• ✓ It clarifies that criticism of governmental inaction and highlighting discrimination do not automatically constitute an offense under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ The judgment emphasizes the need to read speech in its entirety and in the context of the circumstances in which it was made.
• ✓ It underscores the importance of applying the standard of a reasonable, strong-minded person when evaluating speech for potential offenses.
• ✓ The ruling has implications for future cases involving allegations of hate speech and promotion of enmity, emphasizing that intent to cause disorder or incite violence is a necessary element of the offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than quashing the FIR.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Facebook post criticizing governmental inaction and highlighting discrimination against non-tribals does not constitute an offense under Section 153A and 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless there is a clear intention to promote enmity or incite violence. This judgment reinforces the importance of free speech and clarifies that criticism and dissent are not equivalent to promoting hatred. The judgment also emphasizes that the standard to be applied to judge such speech is that of a reasonable, strong-minded person and not of a weak or vacillating mind.

Conclusion

In the case of Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya, the Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR registered against the Appellant, holding that her Facebook post did not promote enmity between communities but was a call for justice and equality. The Court emphasized the importance of free speech, the need to read speech in its entirety, and the requirement of intent to promote enmity or incite violence for an offense under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment serves as a significant reminder of the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the maintenance of public order.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 505, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Constitutional Law

Child Category: Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Hate Speech

Child Category: Freedom of Speech

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya case?

A: The main issue was whether a Facebook post criticizing government inaction and highlighting discrimination against non-tribals constituted an offense under Section 153A and 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Patricia Mukhim, holding that her Facebook post did not promote enmity between communities but was a call for justice and equality.

Q: What is Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

A: Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

Q: What is Section 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

A: Section 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with statements conducing to public mischief, particularly those made with the intent to incite any class or community to commit an offense against another class or community.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for freedom of speech?

A: The judgment reinforces the importance of free speech and clarifies that criticism of government inaction and highlighting discrimination do not automatically constitute an offense, unless there is a clear intention to promote enmity or incite violence.

Q: What standard did the Court use to evaluate the Facebook post?

A: The Court used the standard of a reasonable, strong-minded person to evaluate the Facebook post, ensuring that it was not judged based on the sensitivities of a weak or vacillating mind.

Q: What does the judgment mean for future cases involving hate speech?

A: The judgment emphasizes that intent to cause disorder or incite violence is a necessary element of the offense and that speech should be read in its entirety and in context.