Merely Expressing Criticism Of Government Is Not An Offence: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court quashed FIRs against three men who were accused of hatching criminal conspiracy on a Telegram Group in which police personnel were added, saying that mere criticism of the government is not an offence.

The Court was deciding a batch of petitions seeking quashing of respective FIRs concerning same set of allegations for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B) and 505(1)(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922.

A Single Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar said, “... petitioners have not committed any offence under Section 505(1)(B) of the IPC as it was a fair and bonafide attempt and legitimate demand and subsequently government has also accepted the same and hence, it was not a rumour. Merely to express any opinion or to exercise the fundamental right or to make any criticism under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is not an offence. Going by the allegations made in the FIRs and other attending circumstances, no offence is made out against the present petitioners.”

Advocate R.B. Thakor appeared for the petitioners while Public Prosecutor (PP) Hardik Dave and Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Trupesh Kathiriya appeared for the respondents.

Factual Background -

The FIRs were filed by the police officials alleging that the petitioner/accused persons by hatching criminal conspiracy made the complainant a member by some admin of the group namely “2800police_SRPF_Districtwise” without his knowledge in 2020 and when he checked the account a few days later, the same was deleted.

It was further alleged that in the said group, different issues as mentioned were raised. Pursuant to the same, the complainant verified the admin of the said group and other details and found that the said link was forwarded through www.kapsnet.in. Further, details of the website were checked and different posts regarding grade pay of police were found.

The High Court in the above context of the case observed, “Herein, neither the police personnel nor any other government employee have committed any offence against the State or public tranquility. Merely based on apprehension or assumption, the petitioners cannot be booked for an offence under Section 505(1)(B) of the IPC.”

The Court said that merely because police officials are involved in the group is not a ground that, there was a possibility to create class of two group of people.

“It is also pertinent to note that police officers will never lose their status of government servant unlike the primary teachers and other government employees who had made a demand of grade pay. They were also intending to get their legal right and grade pay”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the act on the part of the petitioners even if taken at it is it is nothing but amounts to fair and bonafide demand or criticism of government and except this, no inference could be drawn and hence, no offence is culled out from the allegations levelled in the FIRs.

“Merely because message is spread, it cannot be termed that due to the said message, public tranquility is put in the peril and create fear in the minds of people and that too such police personnel having strong mind and being employee of disciplined department”, it also elucidated.

The Court enunciated that merely because the petitioners without any consent have floated any self-styled message is not a ground to book them for the offence under Section 505(1)(B) of the IPC.

“Considering the aforesaid proposition in consonance with the facts of the case on hand, to continue such proceeding against the present petitioners would be abuse of process of law and hence, present is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the CrPC”, it remarked.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the FIRs against the accused persons.

Cause Title- Kalpesh Vaghabhai Chaudhary v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:GUJHC:44667)

Click here to read/download the Judgment