Thread by @barandbench

#SupremeCourt to hear a plea by Editor of Shillong Times, Patricia Mukhim, against the Meghalaya High Court's order dismissing her petition to quash criminal proceedings against her for a @Facebook post decrying violence against non-tribal people in the State
@PatriciaMukhim

Matter passed over.

Senior Adv Vrinda Grover reads the facts of the case and contents of mukhim's @Facebook post.

Grover: Reads the content of the post which stated that the case of attack on non tribal should "not be lost in police files".

Justice Rao: What is this community body?

Grover: They received a statutory recognition earlier and they look into attacks on non tribals.

Justice Rao: Under what sections was the FIR registered? Date of FIR?

Grover: Complaint is July 6, 2020, FIR is July 7 and the post was July 4. The complaint stated attacker was tribal boys whereas Mukhim used allegedly. It has been edited out. FB post was not reproduced in full

Grover states how the complaint stated the social media post could fuel communal conflict.

Senior Adv Grover: Complaint states Mukhim has defamed the entire village. "This is nothing short of defamation based on lies and ignorance. "

Grover: There was an incident on July 3 where there was a murderous assault. My post had no intention to create disharmony or conflict. Who am I calling upon? I am calling upon the Chief Minister and Police Director General. I am asking for an impartial treatment under law

Grover: I say criminal elements has no community. The complainant community was called out so that the black sheep in the community could be called out. Section 499 and Section 505 (c) are non cognizable offences. The only limb this case stands on is Section 153(a) of IPC

Senior Advocate Grover: Portrayal of a skirmish between two groups is not prohibited under Section 153 A of IPC.

Senior Adv Grover: In my reading of Facebook post there is no assuaging of feelings of a community which has been attacked brutally. My post is only making a comment that non tribal minority boys have been targeted violently. This was only way harmony can be promoted

Senior Adv Grover reads the Babulal Rao judgment.

Justice Ravindra Bhat: Read the para 3, first couple of lines, you will get the gist.

Grover: Writing in these two articles of the judgment is more absurd than my facebook post. Here they compared chalk with cheese

Senior Adv Grover: Doctrine of proportionality needs to be taken into account to see if the post could have disturbed law and order of the society.

#SupremeCourt

Grover: It has to be seen what was the intent of my post. I am drawing the attention of the Chief Minister and police towards the attack. My aim was to highlight the criminal element present in the society. I am performing my role as a responsible citizen.

#SupremeCourt

Matter to resume post lunch.

Senior Advocate Grover: It is a matter of record that after my post there was no violence or any retaliatory attack

#SupremeCourt

Grover: There was no incitement to offence with my post. Would it be in public interest to continue with charges against me. Babulal Rao case was completely erroneously cited in my case. I am not taking recourse to extraordinary remedy ad I approached High Court first

Advocate AM Tripathi for the state: Facts are very much relevant. Test of intent and content has to be seen when hate speech is being made. Since she is reputed, what she said and believing is also very high

Tripathi: Press Release was immediately circulated by AIG, Meghalaya. The release stated that how unidentified boys assaulted some others who sustained injuries. Police after receiving information registered a criminal case and some suspects were picked up on the day of incident

Justice Bhat: Press release was published on 5th and the post was made on 4th. When was FIR registered?

Tripathi: On 3rd itself

Justice Bhat: The release warns people from making any post. But post was on the same day as the release. Shows that indeed the incident was serious

Tripathi: There have been communal incidents with Bengalis and the local people. There were riots in 2018. In this backdrop police asked witnesses to the crime to come forward and not give any communal colour

Tripathi: Where did the information originate that the masked attackers were "allegedly tribal boys." There should have been verification of facts before putting out such a post especially when she is reputed and has so many followers

Justice Bhat: In 1979 something happened, who was held guilty?

Tripathi: Don't know my lord will find out

Justice Bhat: You don't even know what happened to them

#SupremeCourt

Tripathi: Communal colour was given to the scuffle between minor boys. Her post shows it was a communal incident between tribal and non tribal people.

Justice Rao: They argue that Section 153A ingredients are not made out. Please seal with that..

Tripathi: With the background of past attacks, this post could have become communal too.

Justice Rao: how can you mix Section 153A and Section 153B. They are exclusive to each other
.#SupremeCourt

Justice Bhat: you say the post is tending to fan communal tension. If it's a publication it could have been stopped. But her post is there still.

Justice Rao: What are the tests laid down by the court to see words spoken or written can come under 153A

Tripathi: Statement by the journalist has a far reaching affect compared to a common man

Justice Rao: What happened to events posed FIR

Tripathi: Nothing happened

SC: Tripathi you are wrong. For quashing a FIR under Section 482 Crpc. Allegations are taken into account and if allegations don't make an offence under the sections invoked then an FIR is quashed. We get she has to be more comfortable than normal citizen. But trial is different

#SupremeCourt: You are saying probe is on so we shouldn't interfere. Anything else?

Adv Tripathi shows the judgments substantiating his case

SC: we will look into it

Senior Adv Grover: all the persons arrested have been released on bail as there is no progress in investigation

Justice Rao: That has no relevance

Grover: But charges against me continue

Judgment reserved.
#SupremeCourt
@PatriciaMukhim

Supreme Court reserves judgment in plea by Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim against FIR for Facebook post

@PatriciaMukhim #SupremeCourt @ShillongTimes
barandbench.com/news/litigatio…