'Dissenting views in sensitive matters must be expressed after proper analysis'

Any critical or dissenting views in sensitive matters that stir up emotions of different groups of people must be expressed only after proper analysis of the situation and backed with reasoning the Bombay High Court has said while refusing to quash an FIR against a professor for putting a WhatsApp status on Article 370A division bench of Justices S B Shukre and M M Sathaye in its order of April 10 said it prima facie finds that the professor has in a very casual manner posted the status message about the abrogation of Article 370 which ended the special status of Jammu and KashmirThe court dismissed the petition filed by 26yearold Javed Ahmed Hajam seeking to quash the first information report FIR registered against him by Hatkanangale police station in Maharashtras Kolhapur district under section 153 A of the Indian Penal Code IPC for promoting enmityHajam originally from Baramulla district of Jammu and Kashmir was a professor at a college in KolhapurThe allegation against Hajam is that between August 13 and 15 2022 he had put a status on his WhatsApp August 5 Black Day Jammu amp Kashmir with a message below saying Article 370 was abrogated we are not happy and 14th August Happy Independence Day PakistanAlso Read Refusing divorced woman to adopt child as she is working reflects medieval conservative mindset Bombay HCHajam in his plea in the high court said he had not circulated any messages that would promote enmity or bring disharmony or feeling of hatred between religions He claimed that he had merely put his view on his WhatsApp statusThe bench however opined that the first status message on Article 370 constituted an offence under section 153A of the IPC but the second status message on Pakistans Independence Day did notThe first message which has been posted on WhatsApp by the petitioner Hajam is without giving any reason and without making any critical analysis of the step taken by the central government towards abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution the court said in its orderIn our view this message has the tendency to play with emotions of different groups of people in India as there are strong feelings of contrasting nature about the status of Jammu and Kashmir in India and therefore one has to tread cautiously in such a field the high court saidIf any criticism is to be made it must be upon evaluation of all pros and cons of the situation and backed by reason the court addedNo doubt in a democratic country like India where there is a fundamental right in the nature of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 every word of criticism and every view of dissent is important for maintaining democracy in a good state of health HC saidBut we may add that at least in sensitive matters any critical words or dissenting view must be expressed after proper analysis of the whole situation and must provide the reasons for which the critique or dissent is made it addedThis is more so when the emotions and sentiments behind a particular thing or aspect being criticised run high with different shades and hues among different groups of people the bench saidIn such a case the criticism disagreement difference of opinion dissent whatever one may choose to call must be expressed upon an indepth analysis and accompanied by reasons so that the appeal that such critique makes is not to the emotions of groups of people but to the reason the logic the rationale of the groups of people the order saidIt added that when appeal is to the reason then there is least possibility of stirring up emotions but when the appeal is to the emotions then the reason is the casualtyWhen reason falls victim to the emotions there results illwill hatred public disturbance and negativity all around the high court saidThe court however noted that the second status wishing Pakistan a Happy Independence was not covered by section 153A of the IPC as no reasonable person with a strong mind would see anything wrong in celebrating Independence Day of other countries without denouncing the celebration of Independence Day of ones own countryThe bench refused to quash the FIR and dismissed Hajams petitionThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever