Outrage in society alone can’t be a justification to suppress free speech, says Delhi court docket

Outrage in society alone can’t be a justification to suppress free speech, a Delhi court docket has noticed, Live Law reported on Saturday.

The court docket made the statement whereas dismissing a plea searching for a sedition case towards Kerala MLA KT Jaleel for his remarks about Jammu and Kashmir on social media.

In a Facebook publish in August, Jaleel had referred to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir as “Azad Kashmir” and Jammu and Kashmir as “India-occupied Jammu and Kashmir”, in keeping with The Indian Express.

“The court is mindful of the fact that the alleged statements of the accused are unpopular, outrages and are rather offensive…however, it must be kept in mind that the freedom of speech protects actions that the society may find very offensive,” Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Harjeet Singh Jaspal mentioned.

The grievance towards Jaleel was filed by Advocate GS Mani, who had alleged that the MLA made “anti-national remarks” in his social media publish.

The lawyer had sought registration of a primary info report towards Jaleel beneath Sections Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (selling enmity between teams), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to nationwide integration), 504 (disturbing public peace), 505(1) (public mischief) and 505 (2) (public mischief with intent to trigger, concern or alarm to the general public) of the Indian Penal Code.

At the listening to, the court docket rejected Mani’s argument that Jaleel’s publish about Jammu and Kashmir might create enmity between Hindus and Muslims, reported Live Law.

“The social set-up, the secular thread and fraternity in democratic Indian background cannot be assumed to be so feeble that it would break or get bruised on random statements of selfish politicians,” Justice Jaspal mentioned. “And I can proudly say the same about national integration as well.”

The decide additionally mentioned that the publish appeared to have been written in haste with an intention to get undue political mileage.

“The maker of the statement ought to be a person of misconceived knowledge, misconstrued facts and misplaced beliefs,” he mentioned. “Thus the statement by itself ought to be condemned in strictest words.”