Click the Play button to listen to article

The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (November 11), directed the Director General of Police to reply to a plea seeking a Police Standing Order or Circular prescribing uniform, lawful safeguards for police stations, cybercrime units and investigating officers while dealing with complaints relating to social media posts, political criticism, satire, and online speech.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notice to the DGP and directed him to file a reply within 2 weeks.

When the case was being heard, Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani informed the court that two similar petitions were pending before a single judge. He also informed the court that the State was promulgating an SOP and the process had already begun. He added that many aspects had to be considered, which would be taken note of while issuing the SOP. The bench then directed him to file a reply to the present plea detailing the aspects.

The petition has been filed by an advocate, H Syed Alim. Alim had stated that the plea was being filed in light of the increasing criminal complaints against citizens, journalists, political commentators, activists and social media users for criticism, satire, political opinion and democratic dissent expressed through online platforms.

The petitioner pointed out the recent registration of criminal cases against DMK MLA GV Markandayan, DMK's Anbanatham and Vinoth Suriya Kumar in connection with allegations arising from remarks made during public speech. He thus pointed out that there was a practical need for a consistent approach when criminal law is invoked in matters concerning social media posts and political expression.

The petitioner argued that in most of the cases, the police had not verified the locus of the complainant to ascertain if they were legally aggrieved by the alleged expression and had registered the case and effected arrest without examining legal maintainability.

It has been submitted that the police, under pressure from the influential politicians and the ongoing conflict between the two political parties, have used the process of arrest and inquiry to harass the arrested persons under the guise of investigation, compromising the fairness and independence of investigation.

The petitioner submitted that the mechanical power of the State, without considering the maintainability of the complainant, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and has a direct bearing upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

He thus argued that there was a need for a uniform and lawful police procedure in matters involving political speech, social media expression and criticism. He argued that complaints in such matters require careful scrutiny in accordance with applicable laws before coercive action is taken, while preserving the duty of police to register and investigate cognisable offences.

Tags: