Bombay High Court Directs Maharashtra Govt To Compensate Man Booked Wrongly Under Official Secrets Act, Says Costs Be Recovered From Cops

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice R.N. Laddha in a recent judgment held:

“Police Stations are places, where people are free to go/walk in, to lodge a complaint/FIR, to redress the wrong/injustice done to them. It is always open for the police to put up a board prohibiting photography but if one does take a photo/video, certainly, the said act would not come within the ambit of the Official Secrets Act.”

The court allowed a writ petition filed by a 33-year-old man booked under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 for taking photos of a complaint against him at the Mira Road Police Station in Mumbai.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner was called to the police station with respect to a complaint against him. He was denied a photocopy of the complaint and permission to take a photo on his mobile. The petitioner took a photo and video of it after which the police officer registered the offence.

Section 3 (Penalties for spying) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 provides punishment for spying at a 'prohibited place' under section 2(8) of the Act. It is for acts against the safety or interest of the state.

The court said that prima facie Section 3 has been invoked by the police in a mala fide manner. The court reiterated that the definition of 'prohibited place' under section 2(8) of the Act is an exhaustive one but does not include a police station.

“Prima-facie, it appears to us that the petitioner was slapped with the Official Secrets Act, malafidely and deliberately, when on the face of it, no such offence was made out as against the petitioner. Law cannot be used as an instrument to oppress and harrass people. Police being the custodians of law are duty bound to uphold it and not misuse it”, the court held.

The court relied on Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay v. State of Maharashtra wherein it was held that even video recording made on mobile phone within the police station would not attract section 3 of the Act. 

Further, the word spying has serious connotations, and the police has to be mindful of the same. It cannot and must not be lightly invoked, the court said.

Therefore, the court quashed the FIR and charge sheet against the petitioner. The court directed the State to pay Rs. 25000 to the petitioner and recover it from the salary of the persons responsible for lodging the FIR and vetting the filing of charge sheet.

Notably, last month, a coordinate bench led by Justice Dere had pulled up the Maharashtra Police for invoking Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 against a man who took photos outside a police station.

Advocate Anees Shaikh represented the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik represented the State.

Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 3894 of 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 14

Case Title – Zishan Mukhtar Hussain Siddique v. State of Maharashtra