#BombayHighCourt begins hearing the plea filed by Sunaina Holey accused of making objectionable statements against the Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and Cabinet Minister Aaditya Thackeray.
@SunainaHoley
@MumbaiPolice
@OfficeofUT
@AUThackeray
@SunainaHoley
@MumbaiPolice
@OfficeofUT
@AUThackeray
Bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik begin hearing the submissions of Advocate Abbi av Chandrachud appearing for Holey.
Chandrachud gives a brief recap of his submissions yesterday before proceeding with his submissions today.
Chandrachud gives a brief recap of his submissions yesterday before proceeding with his submissions today.
Correction: *Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud
Chandrachud reads a judgment of the US supreme court.
Chandrachud reads - "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric" - asks the court to note yis sentence from the judgment.
States that what may seem objectionable to someone may not be so to another.
States that what may seem objectionable to someone may not be so to another.
Chandrachud: US Supreme court says that words are meant to convey emotions not just a view point.
The petitioner (@SunainaHoley ) here had used an abusive epithet and just using a word does not mean something objectionable, it could mean some foolish emotion.
The petitioner (@SunainaHoley ) here had used an abusive epithet and just using a word does not mean something objectionable, it could mean some foolish emotion.
Court asks Chandrachud if he was reading the dissenting or concurring opinion.
Chandrachud point out thatbhe was reading a dissenting portion.
Chandrachud explains the manner of hearing cases in the US courts.
Chandrachud point out thatbhe was reading a dissenting portion.
Chandrachud explains the manner of hearing cases in the US courts.
Chandrachud: He states that the US supreme court has 9 judges and they pass an order. Of the 10,000 odd cases only 92 are selected and heard orally.
Other cases are dismissed without oral.hearing.
Other cases are dismissed without oral.hearing.
Chandrachud: Your Lordships hear more cases in a day than
US supreme court in a year.
US supreme court in a year.
Justice Shinde recollects a statement of an Indian judge who had gone to US supreme court for a visit.
Shinde: when he returned he said of Indian judges need break theh must go to US.
If they want to work they must come here.
Shinde: when he returned he said of Indian judges need break theh must go to US.
If they want to work they must come here.
Shinde adds that in our country we need to look at our society, the population and the social fabric.
Chandrachud: SC judgment in Ramesh's case was intresting if we consider the freedom to speeach and expression.
Ramesh's case was regarding a series #Tamas being aired on DD.
Chandrachud: SC judgment in Ramesh's case was intresting if we consider the freedom to speeach and expression.
Ramesh's case was regarding a series #Tamas being aired on DD.
Chandrachud: The Bombay HC held that common do not lack common sense to blindly follow something.
And this was upheld by the SC.
Shinde: We are one of the few countries. We have been taught tolerance since our childhood. It is not easy.. 1.3 crore people to live together..
And this was upheld by the SC.
Shinde: We are one of the few countries. We have been taught tolerance since our childhood. It is not easy.. 1.3 crore people to live together..
Correction: It is not easy.. 130 crore people to live together.
Chandrachud begins reading from the Shreya Singhal judgment.
Chandrachud begins reading from the Shreya Singhal judgment.
Chandrachud finishes the judgment and asks if he can continue.
He says he has only 2 more judgements to refer to which should take only 10 more minutes.
Court permits him to finish his arguments.
He says he has only 2 more judgements to refer to which should take only 10 more minutes.
Court permits him to finish his arguments.
Court: Suppose investigation has progressed further and mater is taken for hearing.for.quashing.of FIR. Is the court supposed to take into consideration the new evidence and material?
Chandrachud: That is answered in Manzhar Khan's case. An FIR is not an encyclopedia.
However, if someone comes and complains against a tweet then prima facie that cannot be used to determine the cognizable or non-cognizable offences.
However, if someone comes and complains against a tweet then prima facie that cannot be used to determine the cognizable or non-cognizable offences.
Court: at the cost of repetition we are only wanting to discuss as we feel you two can assist us. (Adv. Chandrachud and Sr Adv. Manoj Mohite for State)
Chandrachud: Prima facie the FIR should point out if there is a commission of offence. If the FIR fails to point that out, then the additional evidence need not be considered.
Chandrachud: In case of a serious offence, of course it is different.but in case of freedom of speech and expression the court must consider if the offending material is making out an offence or not.
Chandrachud also argues that the present case has some elements of malafides.
The petitioner on her twitter handle says she has certain ideologies and beliefs because of which she is being targetted and there are many cases registered against her.
The petitioner on her twitter handle says she has certain ideologies and beliefs because of which she is being targetted and there are many cases registered against her.
Court: I have fundamental right to exercise, while.exercising that I must ensure that my brother's right is not.infringed.
That is not happening in many cases.
And then they come under article 19.
Even in mature democracy the freedom is not absolute.
That is not happening in many cases.
And then they come under article 19.
Even in mature democracy the freedom is not absolute.
Court: one individual naming the PM, they are not just individuals, they are occupying a position.
Of course they must have capacity to tolerate and bear criticism.
Of course they must have capacity to tolerate and bear criticism.
Justice Shinde: Even judiciary must be open to criticism. Contempt is thenlast resort or weapon. That is my personal opinion.
Because precious judicial time is wasted on contempt.hearings and.important matters and question of law cannot get heard.
Because precious judicial time is wasted on contempt.hearings and.important matters and question of law cannot get heard.
Justice Shinde on HC judge impeachment process points out that the Parliament can take action against the judgem. But if someone from the society makes a comment which is criticism, then that should be allowed.
Chandrachud chimes in that people against whom action is taken get more attention than theh would otherwise.
Recently against a comedian action has been taken, he adds. Nobody would have noticed it otherwise.
Recently against a comedian action has been taken, he adds. Nobody would have noticed it otherwise.
Mohite adds that the intention of the person making the comment should be looked into.
Shinde: that matter is subjudice before the Chief Justice of India.
We anyway don't read all that. Don't even get time for that.
Shinde: that matter is subjudice before the Chief Justice of India.
We anyway don't read all that. Don't even get time for that.
Chandrachud reminds the court that he has about 10 mins of arguments left.
Court asks him to continue his arguments on Thursday.
Matter adjourned. Hearing ends.
Court asks him to continue his arguments on Thursday.
Matter adjourned. Hearing ends.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
