#BombayHighCourt will shortly begin hearing the plea filed by Sunaina Holey for quashing FIR by Mumbai Police accusing her of passing objectionable statements on her Twitter handle against Maharashtra Chief Minister and Cabinet Minister.
@SunainaHoley
@OfficeofUT
@AUThackeray
@SunainaHoley
@OfficeofUT
@AUThackeray
Hearing begins.
Court asks both counsels how long will they to make their submissions.
Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud appearing for Sunaina Holey says he will take 25 mins.
Court asks him to finish his arguments and then State can begin on the next date given paucity of time.
Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud appearing for Sunaina Holey says he will take 25 mins.
Court asks him to finish his arguments and then State can begin on the next date given paucity of time.
Chandrachud is giving a brief recap of his submissions so far.
Chandrachud refers to the judgment of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (Read here: indiankanoon.org/doc/639296/)
Chandrahud asks court to note: For promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred "between different" religious or racial or language or regional groups or castes and communities, it is necessary that atleast two such groups or communities should be involved.
Chandrachud: Merely inciting the felling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the two sections.
He then submits the judgement of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (Read here: indiankanoon.org/doc/123425906/)
Chandrachud adds that even though the judgments were not under Sec 482, however in the earlier Supreme Court orders that he refers to, these two judgements were referred to by the Supreme Court.
He submits a transcript of the impugned video against which the complaint came to be filed by the Mumbai Police.
Chandrachud sums up that after reading the trascript of the video which was shared by @SunainaHoley does not make out any offences which are alleged against her.
Chandrachud concludes his submissions.
He points out that there are two other matters which are filed to quash two FIRs against two different tweets.
He points out that the outcome of the present petition will determine the outcome in other two petitions.
He points out that there are two other matters which are filed to quash two FIRs against two different tweets.
He points out that the outcome of the present petition will determine the outcome in other two petitions.
He requests the State to continue their statement of not arresting and even filing chargesheet against @SunainaHoley.
Additional PP objects initially, but then the Court directs him to either take instructions of else an order to that effect will be passed.
Additional PP objects initially, but then the Court directs him to either take instructions of else an order to that effect will be passed.
After taking instructions, APP makes a statement that no coercive action will be taken against her till the hearing of the present petition.
Court also asks the APP to consider continuing protection in other two matters till January 12, 2021.
Court also asks the APP to consider continuing protection in other two matters till January 12, 2021.
The APP, on instructions, submits that no coercive action will be taken against @SunainaHoley till January 12, 2021.
Sr. Adv. Manoj Mohite appearing for the State requests the Court to direct @SunainaHoley to not tweet about the pending petitions or the subject matter in the petition on her Twitter handle.
He tenders printouts of her tweets to the court.
He tenders printouts of her tweets to the court.
Court: She has written 'taareekh pe taareekh'... (Laughs)
We are listening to her petition.
Chandrachud: Milords this is a famous dialogue. Even though I do not subscribe to this at all.
We are listening to her petition.
Chandrachud: Milords this is a famous dialogue. Even though I do not subscribe to this at all.
Chandrachud: especially when milords are listening to this matter everyday in the middle of the pandemic from 4.30 to 5.30.
But the State should show some provision which restrains a ciozem from exercising the freedom of speech.
But the State should show some provision which restrains a ciozem from exercising the freedom of speech.
Court: Mr. Chandrachud we do not have any problem with 'tareekh pe taareekh'. There is a television programme on that.
And everyday so many matters are being filed. Under Negotiable Instruments Act has generated lakhs and lakhs of matters filed in Delhi, Madras and Bombay.
And everyday so many matters are being filed. Under Negotiable Instruments Act has generated lakhs and lakhs of matters filed in Delhi, Madras and Bombay.
No one thought of the infrastructure required to hear the matters.
Court reiterates that they do not have a problem with the line.
Court: What she said is a fact. We understand that for a litigant their matter is most important. Thousands of cases are filed for bail and other reliefs.
Court: What she said is a fact. We understand that for a litigant their matter is most important. Thousands of cases are filed for bail and other reliefs.
Court: but for each litigant their matter is most important.
Court records the statements of the APP.
Asks Chandrachud to take instructions from Holey regarding showing some restraint while tweeting about the pending petitions and the subject matter pertaining to it.
Court records the statements of the APP.
Asks Chandrachud to take instructions from Holey regarding showing some restraint while tweeting about the pending petitions and the subject matter pertaining to it.
Court adjourns the hearing on the matter to Monday.
The other two petitions will most likely be heard on January 21, 2021
The other two petitions will most likely be heard on January 21, 2021
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
