Law cannot be instrument of oppression, says Bombay High Court

The law cannot be used as an instrument of oppression to harass people and prevent them from expressing their views the Bombay High Court said on Monday while quashing two FIRs registered against a man for posting a video of a Maharashtra minister making alleged objectionable remarks against social reformers Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Babasaheb AmbedkarThe HC also said the onus was on the police and the State to ensure Indian Penal Code section 153A pertaining to promoting enmity between groups through acts that are prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony which was invoked against the man is not misused by anyone much less political partiesThe HC directed the state government to pay a fine of Rs 25000 to the man for his unjustified arrest adding the amount be recovered from the salary of the Pune policemen responsible for registering the FIRsSandeep Kudale who claims to be a Congress worker had posted a video of Maharashtra minister and senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader Chandrakant Patil making alleged objectionable remarks about Phule and AmbedkarFollowing this act FIRs were registered against Kudale at different police stations in Pune under Indian Penal Code sections 153A1a promoting enmity between two groups through words written or spoken and 153A1b committing any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious racial language or regional groups or castes or communitiesA division bench of justices Revati Dere and Prithviraj Chavan in their order quashing the FIRs observed Law cannot be used as a tool or as an instrument of oppression by registering FIRs to harass people by preventingintimidating them from expressing their viewsopinionsdissent which the Constitution of India guarantees to themThe right to express ones views is a protected and cherished right in our democracy and cannot be taken away by imposition of Section 153A of the IPC and by arresting a person as was done in the present case the HC further observedSection 153A cannot be resorted to silence people from expressing their viewsopinionsdissent so long as Article 192 is not violated Cases under Section 153A are on the rise and the onus is on the policeState to ensure the said provision is not misused by anyone much less political parties it addedThe bench noted the Constitution guarantees several fundamental rights to its citizens and one of the rights conferred is the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 191aAlso read Tunisha Sharma death Lawyer opposes suicide abetment charge against actor SheezanThe said right to freedom of speech and expression enables a person to express his or her opinions freely subject to reasonable restrictions as spelt out in the very Article This right guaranteed to all its citizens is a valuable right and is the backbone of a healthy and vibrant democracy In a way it enshrines the principle of liberty of thought and expression given in the Preamble the court saidThe HC said that as revealed from the contents of the FIR Kudale had only expressed his view pursuant to what the minister had said adding this act of the petitioner was well within his right to express his opinion as guaranteed by the ConstitutionMerely because the petitioners comments hurt the complainants sensibilities is not a ground for the police to register the FIRs much less arrest him the HC order statedThe HC bench said it is pertinent to note the petitioner Kudale was arrested and was in custody for two days despite prima facie no offence being disclosed against himThe police before arresting must first apply their mind as to whether any offence is made out or not as an arrest visits serious consequences on the person arrested The offences alleged have serious connotationsramification and the police have to be mindful of the same it saidThe HC order said invocation of the said sections has serious repercussions not only on that persons life but also his family life and causes incalculable harm to ones reputation and even careerIt cannot and must not be lightly invoked the HC asserted