Freedom Of Expression Doesn't Give Citizens The Right To Speak Sans Responsibility On Social Media: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the freedom of expression does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility on social media nor does it grant an unfettered license for every possible use of language.

"...it is beyond the shadow of a doubt that social media is a global platform for the exchange of thoughts, opinions, and ideas. The internet and social media have become important tool through which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of expression but the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties. It does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered license for every possible use of language," the bench of Justice Shehar Kumar Yadav said.

The Court observed thus while refusing to quash criminal proceedings against one Nandini Sachan who has been booked under Section 67 of the IT Act [Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form] for allegedly tampering with the photo of the informant and posting the same on the internet while using abusive words.

The Court, in its analysis of the facts of the case, found that the offence under Section 67 I.T. Act was attracted in the present case, and hence, there was no ground for quashing the proceedings against the applicant/accused.

"The right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties. It does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered license for every possible use of language": #AllahabadHighCourt pic.twitter.com/kwTaGDSeDe

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 27, 2023

It may be noted that the accused/applicant (Sachan) had moved the Court seeking to quash the cognizance order passed by Judicial Magistrate, the charge sheet as well as the entire proceedings of the Case against her pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

It was her plea that she had been implicated falsely in the case and that FIR against her was a counterblast to the FIR lodged by her against the son of opposite party no.2. It was her further case that the FIR was an attempt to harass her as she had rejected the marriage proposal of the son of the informant/opposite party no. 2.

On the other hand, supporting the impugned cognizance order, the AGA as well as counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the contention raised by the counsel for the applicant.

They argued that during the investigation, the investigating officer had found that some person including the applicant, who is also a lady, was involved in the aforesaid illegal activities, therefore, submitted charge sheet against the applicant after recording a statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses. 

In this backdrop, the Court, at the outset, perused Section 67 of IT Act and termed it as 'unfortunate' that under the said provision, the accused shall only be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may be extended to two to three years with fine and in the event of second or subsequent conviction which imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years also with fine, which may extend to 10 lakh rupees.

The Court further stressed that though social media has widened the scope of freedom of expression, but the said right doesn't confer upon the citizens any right to speak without responsibility.

Further, upon perusal of F.I.R. and the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicant, the Court observed that the cognizable offence against the applicant was made out.

"Perusal of charge sheet submitted against the applicant shows that after investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet after collecting cogent and reliable evidence against the applicant and thereafter the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant to face trial," the Court further observed as it refused to quash the proceedings and dismissed applicant's plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Uday Narain Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Om Prakash

Case title - Nandini Sachan vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38967 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 41

Click Here To Read/Download Order