Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PIL 3-2015
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
C
ou
CRIMINALPUBLICINTERESTLITIGATIONNO.3OF2015
SanskarMarathe
..Petitioner
versus
ig
h
1.TheStateofMaharashtra
throughCommissionerofPolice,Mumbai.
2.TheSeniorPoliceInspector,
BandraKurlaComplexPoliceStation,
BKC,Mumbai.
ba
y
3.AssemTrivedi,
1/458A,Rishinagar,Shuklaganj,Unnao,
UttarPradesh209861.
..Respondents
om
Mr.SanskarMarathe,petitionerinperson.
Mr.SunilV.Manohar,AdvocateGeneralwithMr.S.K.Shinde,
GovernmentPleaderforrespondentnos.1and2.
Mr.MihirDesaiwithMr.VijayHiremathforrespondentno.3.
CORAM:MOHITS.SHAH,C.J.AND
N.M.JAMDAR,J.
DateofReservingthejudgment:19January2015
Dateofpronouncingthejudgment:17March2015
1 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
ArrestofoneAssemTrivedion8September2012on
C
ou
1.
rt
JUDGMENT(PerChiefJustice):
thebasisofregistrationofFirstInformationReport(`FIR')on
30January2012alleging,interalia,commissionofoffenceof
sedition punishable under Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code,1860,ledtofilingofthepresentPublicInterestLitigation
2.
ig
h
whichisnowregisteredasCriminalPIL.
TheallegationintheFIRistotheeffectthatAssem
Trivedi,whoisapoliticalcartoonistandsocialactivist,through
hiscartoons,notonlydefamedParliament,theConstitutionof
IndiaandtheAshokEmblembutalsotriedtospreadhatredand
ba
y
om
amountstoseriousactofsedition. AfterthearrestofAssem
Trivedi on 9 September 2012, he was produced before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner alleged that
AssemTrivedirefusedtomakeanapplicationforbailtillthe
chargesofseditionweredropped.Contendingthatpublication
and/or posting such political cartoons on website can by no
stretchofimaginationattractaseriouschargeofseditionand
that Assem Trivedi was languishing in jail on account of the
chargeofseditionbeingincludedintheFIR,thepetitioner,a
practicingadvocateinthisCourt,movedthepresentPILon11
2 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
C
ou
thisCourtpassedthefollowingadinterimorder:
rt
September2012.Thematterwasmentionedforcirculationand
"
Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,
bythisadinterimorderwedirectthatMr.Assem
Trivedi be released on bail on executing a
personalbondinthesumofRs.5,000/.
ig
h
Accordingly,Mr.AssemTrivediexecutedapersonal
bondandwasreleasedonbail.
ba
y
grantedtoimpleadMr.AssemTrivediasrespondentno.3.
3.
Thethirdrespondentclaimedtohaveexercisedhis
fundamentalrighttothefreedomofspeechandexpressionasa
om
cartoonistandclaimedthathisarrestanddetentionseriously
encroached upon the freedom guaranteedto every citizen by
Article19(1)(g)oftheConstitutionofIndia.
4.
Affidavitinreplydated12October2012cametobe
3 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
rt
againstcorruptioninIndia.Apartfromdisplayingthecartoons,
hehadalsouploadedsomeofhiscartoonsonawebsitecalled
C
ou
"CartoonsagainstCorruption".Pursuanttotheabovedisplayof
cartoons, several complaints came to be filed against Aseem
Trivedi.
On10January2012,BandraKurlaComplexPolice
Station received a written complaint from Amit Katarnavare
ig
h
askingthePolicetoregisteranFIR,interalia,underSections
124A,153A,120B,167and109ofIndianPenalCode.When
the said complaints were forwarded to the Directorate of
ba
y
dated10January2012advisedtoinvokeSection124Aofthe
IPC and provisions of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of
ImproperUse)Act,2005. On30January2012,BandraKurla
om
ComplexPoliceStationregisteredanFIRvideCRNo.14of2012
underSection124AofIPC,underSection2ofNationalHonour
Act and under Section 66A of Information Technology Act
basedonstatementofAmitKatarnavare,whichwasrecorded
on30December2011.
5.
Cri.PIL 3-2015
rt
C
ou
hadadmittedtohavedrawnthecartoons. However,thethird
respondentdidnotapplyforbail.Thereafter,asaforesaid,this
ig
h
Courtpassedanorderdated11September2012directingthe
Policetoreleasethethirdrespondentonbailonhisexecuting
6.
personalbond.
Thereafter,BandraKurlaPoliceobtainedopinionof
thethenAdvocateGeneralwithregardtoinvocationofSection
ba
y
124AofIPCtothefactsofpresentcase,amongstotherqueries.
Pursuant to the legal opinion of the then learned Advocate
General,itwasdecidedtodropinvocationofSection124Aof
om
IPC.ThePoliceDepartment,however,tookaviewthatasfaras
application of Section 2 of Prevention of Insult to National
HonourAct,1971andSection66(A)ofInformationTechnology
Actisconcerned,thesamewillapplyonlytothreeoutofseven
cartoons,whichwillbedealtwithinaccordancewithlaw.
7.
Inviewoftheabovedevelopments,thecontroversy
aboutinvocationofSection124AofIPCwouldnotsurviveany
longer in the facts of the present case. However, learned
counsel for petitioner submitted that since the Police had
5 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
rt
arbitrarilyinvokedtheseriouschargeofseditionunderSection
124AofIPCinamatterwherethecartoonistwasentitledto
C
ou
expressionunderArticle19(1)(a)oftheConstitutionofIndia,
this Court may examine the legal position so that such
invocation is not resorted to, in future, in an arbitrary and
irresponsiblemanner.We,therefore,heardthelearnedcounsel
ig
h
forPILpetitioner,learnedAdvocateGeneralfortheStateand
learnedcounselforthirdrespondentMr.AseemTrivedi.
At the outset, we may reproduce Section 124A of
8.
IPCforreadyreference:
om
ba
y
6 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
C
ou
rt
Article19(1)(a)conferringthefundamentalrightto
ig
h
9.
freedomofspeechandexpressionandArticle19(2) readas
under:
"19.(1)Allcitizensshallhavetheright
om
ba
y
7 / 21
10.
rt
Cri.PIL 3-2015
Intheleadingcaseof KedarNathSinghVs.State
C
ou
ofBihar1,aConstitutionBenchoftheSupremeCourtexamined
thequestionhowfartheoffence,asdefinedinSection124Aof
IPC, is consistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by
Article19(1)(a)oftheConstitution,andobserved,interalia,as
under:
om
ba
y
ig
h
"24.
1 AIR-1962-SC-955
8 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
stabilityoftheState.Thatiswhy'sedition',asthe
offence in s. 124A has been characterised, comes
under Chapter VI relating to offences against the
State.Henceanyactswithinthemeaningofs.124A
whichhavetheeffectofsubvertingtheGovernment
by bringing that Government into contempt or
hatred,orcreatingdisaffectionagainstit,wouldbe
within the penal statute because the feeling of
disloyaltytotheGovernmentestablishedbylawor
enmitytoitimportstheideaoftendencytopublic
disorderbytheuseofactualviolenceorincitement
toviolence.Inotherwords,anywrittenorspoken
words,etc.,whichhaveimplicitinthemtheideaof
subvertingGovernmentbyviolentmeans,whichare
compendiously included in the term 'revolution',
have been made penal by the section in question.
But the section has taken care to indicate clearly
that strong words used to express
disapprobationofthemeasuresofGovernment
withaviewtotheirimprovementoralteration
by lawful means would not come within the
section.Similarly, comments,however strongly
worded,expressingdisapprobationofactionsof
theGovernment,withoutexcitingthosefeelings
which generate the inclination to cause public
disorderbyactsofviolence,wouldnotbepenal.
Inotherwords,disloyaltytoGovernmentestablished
by law is not the same thing as commenting in
strong terms upon the measures or acts of
Government,oritsagencies,soastoamelioratethe
conditionofthepeopleortosecurethecancellation
or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful
means,thatistosay,withoutexcitingthosefeelings
ofenmityanddisloyaltywhichimplyexcitementto
publicdisorderortheuseofviolence.
25. Ithasnotbeencontendedbeforeusthatifa
speechorawritingexcitespeopletoviolenceorhave
thetendencytocreatepublicdisorder,itwouldnot
come within the definition of 'sedition'. What has
beencontendedisthatapersonwhomakesavery
9 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
26. .......Therecanbenodoubtthatapartfrom
theprovisionsofclause(2)ofArt.19,Sections124A
and505areclearlyviolativeofArt.19(1)(a)ofthe
10 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
Constitution.Butthenwehavetoseehowfarthe
savingclause,namely,clause(2)ofArt.19protects
thesectionsaforesaid.Now,asalreadypointedout,
intermsoftheamendedclause(2),quotedabove,
theexpression"intheinterestof....publicorder"are
words of great amplitude and are much more
comprehensive than the expression "for the
maintenance of", as observed by this Court in the
caseofVirendrav.TheStateofPunjab:1958SCR
308atP.317:[(S)AIR1957SC896atP.899].Any
lawwhichisenactedintheinterestofpublicorder
may be saved from the vice of constitutional
invalidity.If,ontheotherhand,weweretoholdthat
evenwithoutanytendencytodisorderorintentionto
create disturbance of law and order, by the use of
words written or spoke which merely create
disaffection or feelings of enmity against the
Government,theoffenceofseditioniscomplete,then
such an interpretation of the sections would make
themunconstitutionalinviewofArt.19(1)(a)read
with clause (2). It is well settled that if certain
provisionsoflawconstruedinonewaywouldmake
themconsistentwiththeConstitution,andanother
interpretation would render them unconstitutional,
the Court would lean in favour of the former
construction.Theprovisionsofthesectionsreadasa
whole, along with the explanations, make it
reasonablyclearthatthesectionsaimatrendering
penalonlysuchactivitiesaswouldbeintended,
or have a tendency, to create disorder or
disturbanceofpublicpeacebyresorttoviolence.
Asalreadypointedout,theexplanationsappendedto
the main body of the section make it clear that
criticism of public measures or comment on
Government action, however strongly worded,
wouldbewithinreasonablelimitsandwouldbe
consistentwiththefundamentalrightoffreedom
of speech and expression. It is only when the
words, written or spoken, etc. which have the
pernicious tendency or intention of creating
publicdisorderordisturbanceoflawandorder
11 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
C
ou
rt
thatthelawstepsintopreventsuchactivitiesin
the interest of public order. So construed, the
section, in our opinion, strikes the correct
balance between individual fundamental rights
andtheinterestofpublicorder."
(emphasissupplied)
11.
againinBalwantSinghandanotherVs.StateofPunjab 2.On
ig
h
thedateofassassinationofformerPrimeMinisterSmt.Indira
Gandhi,considerabletensionhadbeengeneratedintheStateof
Punjab. The appellants raised three slogans and they were
chargedwiththeoffencespunishableunderSections124Aand
153B of IPC. In that context, the Supreme Court made the
ba
y
followingobservations:
om
thatitsapplicationwouldbeattractedonlywhenthe
accused brings or attempts to bring into hatred or
contemptorexcitesorattemptstoexcitedisaffection
towardstheGovernmentestablishedbylawinIndia,
bywordseitherwrittenorspokenorvisiblesignsor
representationsetc. Keepinginviewtheprosecution
evidencethattheslogansasnoticedabovewereraised
a couple of times only by the appellant and that
neithertheslogansevokedaresponsefromanyother
personoftheSikhcommunityorreactionfrompeople
ofothercommunities,wefinditdifficulttoholdthat
upontheraisingofsuchcasualslogans,acoupleof
timeswithoutanyotheractwhatsoever,thechargeof
seditioncanbefounded.Itisnottheprosecutioncase
thattheappellantswereeitherleadingaprocession
or were otherwise raising the slogans with the
intentiontoincitepeopletocreatedisorderorthat
2 AIR-1995-SC-1785
12 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
ig
h
C
ou
rt
ba
y
12.
Courtexplainedseditionasdefinedinsection124AIPCinthe
om
followingwords:
37. Section124Adealswith'Sedition'.Seditionisa
crimeagainstsocietynearlyalliedtothatoftreason,
anditfrequentlyprecedestreasonbyashortinterval.
Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term, and it
embracesallthosepractices,whetherbyword,deed,or
writing,whicharecalculatedtodisturbthetranquility
oftheState,andleadignorantpersonstoendeavourto
subverttheGovernmentandlawsofthecountry.The
objects of sedition generally are to induce discontent
and insurrection, and stir up opposition to the
Government, and bring the administration of justice
intocontempt;andtheverytendencyofseditionisto
incitethepeopletoinsurrectionandrebellion."Sedition
3 (2003) 8 SCC 461
13 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
13.
C
ou
rt
hasbeendescribedasdisloyaltyinaction,andthelaw
considersasseditionallthosepracticeswhichhavefor
their object to excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to
create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to
bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the
Government, the laws or constitutions of the realm,
and generally all endeavours to promote public
disorder.
In S.RangarajanVs.P.JagjivanRam andothers4
ig
h
GovernmentpolicyofreservationinGovernmentservice.After
examining the judgments of the Supreme Court of USA, the
om
ba
y
ApexCourtobservedasunder:
7. .... The First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution provides: "Congress shall make no
law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press."ThisAmendmentisabsoluteintermsandit
contains no exception for the exercise of the right.
Heavy burden lies on the State to justify the
interference.Thejudicialdecisions,however,limited
thescopeofrestrictionwhichtheStatecouldimpose
inanygivencircumstances.Thedangerrulewasborn
in Schenek v. United States, 249 U.S. 47. Justice
Holmes for a unanimous court, evolved the test of
"clearandpresentdanger".Heusedthedangertestto
determine where discussion ends and incitement or
attemptbegins.Thecoreofhispositionwasthatthe
FirstAmendmentprotectsonlyutterancesthatseeks
acceptance via the democratic process of discussion
and agreement. But "Words that may have all the
effect of force" calculated to achieve its goal by
14 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
rt
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
8.
TheframeworkofourConstitutiondiffersfrom
theFirstAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution.Article
19(1)(a) of our Constitution guarantees to all
citizenstherighttofreedomofspeechandexpression.
Thefreedomofexpressionmeanstherighttoexpress
onesopinionbywordsofmouth,writing,printing,
pictureorinanyothermanner.Itwouldthusinclude
the freedom of communication and the right to
propagateorpublishopinion.Thecommunicationof
ideas could be made through any medium,
newspaper, magazine or movie. But this right is
subjecttoreasonablerestrictionsongroundssetout
under Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The
reasonablelimitationscanbeputintheinterestof
sovereigntyandintegrityofIndia,thesecurityofthe
State, friendly relations with foreign States, public
order,decencyormoralityorinrelationtocontempt
ofcourt,defamationorincitementtoanoffence.The
Framersdeemeditessentialtopermitimpositionof
reasonablerestrictionsinthelargerinterestsofthe
community and country. They intended to strike a
proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and
thesocialinterestspecifiedunderArticle19(2).
11. Hereagainwefindthedifferencebetweenthe
FirstAmendmenttotheU.S.ConstitutionandArticle
19(1)(a)ofourConstitution.TheFirstAmendment
does not permit any prior restraint, since the
guarantyoffreespeechisinunqualifiedterms.
17. Itwillbethusseenthatcensorshipispermitted
mainlyonsocialinterestspecifiedunderArticle19(2)
oftheConstitutionwithemphasisonmaintenanceof
values and standards of society. Therefore, the
censorship by prior restraint must necessarily be
reasonablethatcouldbesavedbythewellaccepted
principlesofjudicialreview.
15 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
rt
Asregardsthereasonablenessofrestrictiononthegroundof
socialinterestsunderArticle19(2)onthefreedomofspeech
C
ou
om
ba
y
ig
h
45. Theproblemofdefiningtheareaoffreedomof
expression when it appears to conflict with the
various social interests enumerated under Article
19(2)maybrieflybetoucheduponhere.Theredoes
indeedhavetobeacompromisebetweentheinterest
offreedomofexpressionandsocialinterests.Butwe
cannotsimplybalancethetwointerests,asiftheyare
of equal weight. Our commitment to freedom of
expression demands that it cannot be suppressed
unlessthesituationscreatedbyallowingthefreedom
are pressing and the community interest is
endangered. The anticipated danger should not be
remote, conjectural or far fetched. It should have
proximateanddirectnexuswiththeexpression.The
expression of thought should be intrinsically
dangeroustothepublicinterests.Inotherwords,the
expressionshouldbeinseparablylockedupwiththe
actioncontemplatedliketheequivalentofa"sparkin
apowderkeg".
53. We end here as we began on this topic.
Freedom of expression which is legitimate and
constitutionallyprotected,cannotbeheldtoransom
byanintolerantgroupofpeople.Thefundamental
freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably
restrictedforthepurposesmentionedinArticle19(2)
andtherestrictionmustbejustifiedontheanvilof
necessity and not the quicksand of convenience of
expediency. Open criticism of Government policies
and operations is not a ground for restricting
expression.Wemustpracticetolerancetotheviewsof
others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to
democracyastothepersonhimself."
16 / 21
C
ou
14.
rt
Cri.PIL 3-2015
observedthatCourtsmustbeevervigilantinguardingthemost
preciousofallthefreedomsguaranteedbytheConstitutioni.e.
freedom of expression and speech. In Manubhai Patel Vs.
StateofGujaratandanother6theGujaratHighCourtobserved
ig
h
thattherecanindeedbenorealfreedomunlessthoughtisfree
andunchecked,notfreethoughtforthosewhoagreewithus
butfreedomforthethoughtwehate.However,theconstitution
ba
y
sovereigntyandintegrityofIndiaandthesecurityoftheState.
15.
Onaperusaloftheaforesaidjudgments,itisclear
om
thattheprovisionsofsection124AofIPCcannotbeinvokedto
penalizecriticismofthepersonsforthetimebeingengagedin
carrying on administration or strong words used to express
disapprobationofthemeasuresofGovernmentwithaviewto
their improvement or alteration by lawful means. Similarly,
comments,howeverstronglyworded,expressingdisapprobation
of actions of the Government,without excitingthose feelings
whichgeneratetheinclinationtocausepublicdisorderbyacts
ofviolence,wouldnotbepenal.Acitizenhasarighttosayor
5 (1962)3-SCR-842
6 1972-Cri.L.J.-388
17 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
rt
writewhateverhelikesabouttheGovernment,oritsmeasures,
bywayofcriticismorcomments,solongashedoesnotincite
C
ou
peopletoviolenceagainsttheGovernmentestablishedbylawor
withtheintentionofcreatingpublicdisorder.Thesectionaims
atrenderingpenalonlysuchactivitiesaswouldbeintended,or
have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public
16.
ig
h
peacebyresorttoviolence.
wordsorsignswhicharesupposedtohaveanelementofwit,
humourorsarcasm.Havingseenthesevencartoonsinquestion
drawnbythethirdrespondent,itisdifficulttofindanyelement
of wit or humour or sarcasm. The cartoons displayed at a
ba
y
meetingheldon27November2011inMumbai,asapartof
movement launched by Anna Hazare against corruption in
India, were full of anger and disgust against corruption
om
prevailinginthepoliticalsystemandhadnoelementofwitor
humourorsarcasm.Butforthatreason,thefreedomofspeech
andexpressionavailabletothethirdrespondenttoexpresshis
indignationagainstcorruptioninthepoliticalsysteminstrong
termsorvisualrepresentationscouldnothavebeenencroached
uponwhenthereisnoallegationofincitementtoviolenceor
thetendencyortheintentiontocreatepublicdisorder.
17.
Wedonotfinditnecessarytodwellonthesubject
anyfurther,asthelearnedAdvocateGeneralsubmittedthatthe
18 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
rt
StateGovernmentinHomeDepartmentwillissuethefollowing
(1)
C
ou
guidelinesintheformofaCirculartoallthePolicepersonnel:
In view of the felt need to issue certain
guidelinestobefollowedbyPolicewhileinvoking
ig
h
(i)
bringtheGovernment(CentralorState)into
hatredorcontemptormustcauseorattempt
tocausedisaffection,enmityordisloyaltyto
the Government and the words/signs/
representationmustalsobeanincitementto
ba
y
om
apprehensionofpublicdisorder;
(ii)
Cri.PIL 3-2015
C
ou
seditiousunderSection124A;
rt
(iv) Obscenityorvulgaritybyitselfshouldnotbe
ig
h
(v)
ba
y
followedwithintwoweeksbyalegalopinion
in writing from Public Prosecutor of the
om
State.
2.(i) AllUnitCommandersaredirectedtofollow
aboveinstructionsscrupulously.
(ii) It must also be kept in mind that the
instructions mentioned above are not
exhaustive and other relevant factors
dependingfromcasetocasemayalsobekept
inmindwhileapplyingSection124Aofthe
IPC.
20 / 21
Cri.PIL 3-2015
We clarifythatthismatterwasheardonlyonthe
rt
18.
limitedquestionofinvocationofSection124AofIPCandthe
C
ou
ThePILaccordinglystandsdisposedof.
20.
Wewouldliketoplaceonrecordourappreciation
ig
h
19.
forthevaluableassistancerenderedbyMr.DariusKhambata,
(CHIEFJUSTICE)
(N.M.JAMDAR,J.)
ABS
om
ba
y
person.
21 / 21