Kangana Ranaut Vs BMC- Use Of Muscle Power Or Causing Injury By Unlawful Means To Any Person Or Their Property Cannot Be Permitted In Any Civil Society: Bombay High Court

While quashing and setting aside the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's demolition notice to actor Kangana Ranaut, the Bombay High Court observed that she was entitled to compensation as the action of the civic body is actuated by mala fides and involve a clear malice in law, causing a substantial injury to the petitioner actor.Division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice RI Chagla held that in order to estimate the value of damage caused by the said demolition to the petitioner, a valuer is being appointed. Both parties, i.e. the petitioner and the MCGM, shall be heard by the valuer whilst making his report of valuation for which three months time has been granted. Court added that orders on recovery of any part of such compensation from individual officers of the MCGM will be passed when ordering for payment of such compensation as determined by the valuer.While the petitioner alleged that the civic body ordered demolition of her bungalow turned office at Pali Hill in vendetta against her tweets/interviews against the ruling dispensation in Maharashtra, specifically the Shiv Sena party. The MCGM contended that their action of demolition on September 9 was routine and did not have anything to do with the actor's stand against the state government. It was contended the petitioner had started illegal construction inside the said bungalow and during a routine inspection being carried out in the same area, it was discovered by BMC officials that work is still ongoing at the site.At the outset, Court observed-"Before proceeding further, we make it clear that this Court does not countenance unauthorized construction, and also does not approve of loose and irresponsible statements against any individual, authority or Government. We do not accept as true any of the statements/allegations made by the Petitioner through her tweets with regard to the alleged prevailing atmosphere in the state of the state Police or against the film industry. If anything, we are of the view that the Petitioner should be better advised to exercise restraint when "as a public spirited person", she "airs her views regarding issues of public importance on social media platforms …." However, the bench added-"We must, however, hasten to add that the subject matter of the controversy in the present Petition or, indeed, of the impugned order of demolition/action on the part of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, is not the tweets of the petitioner but action on the part of an arm of the state whilst dealing with a citizen. Irresponsible statements made by a citizen in an individual capacity, however distasteful or wrong they may be, are best ignored. Illegal and colourable action/s on part of the state or its agencies vis-à-vis a citizen, is far too serious and damaging to society to be overlooked. Whatever be the folly of an individual, whether in the matter of unauthorized construction, or irresponsible statements hurting the sentiments of individuals or the public in general, no action against such individual by anyone, much less by the state, can lie except within the four corners of law. By no means, colourable exercise of power or resort to threats, use of muscle power and/or causing injury by unlawful means to such person or to his/her property, can be permitted in any civil society. such actions are the very antithesis of the rule of law."Referring to the Saamna Executive Editor and MP Sanjay Raut's interview with News Nation wherein, he used abusive language against Kangana. Court said-"Shri Sanjay Raut has not denied or disputed the contents of the videoclip containing his aforestated interview. He has in his Affidavit only refuted the allegation that he has threatened the Petitioner and, as a cover-up, tried to explain that the use of the word 'harackhor' was in the context of her dishonesty and that he had only responded to the derogatory statement made by the Petitioner insulting the state of Maharashtra and Mumbai, which explanation we do not accept."The bench noted further that immediately on the day after the demolition, i.e. September 10, the newspaper 'saamna' reported the demolition on its first page in a manner of rejoicing and victoriously, with the headline captioned 'Ukhaad diya' meaning 'uprooted'. In the said news report, it is stated that the petitioner who was unnecessarily spoiling the name of Mumbai Police by comparing Mumbai with Pakistan Occupied Kashmir has received a good blow from MCGM. Court said-"The aforestated response of Shri Raut and the language used by him show that because the Petitioner tweeted on September 3, 2020 that she was threatened by Shri Raut and questioned, "why Mumbai is feeling like Pakistan occupied Kashmir". Shri Raut, without being bothered that the rule of law should always prevail, was determined to teach a lesson to the petitioner. Such conduct certainly does not bevt a leader like Shri Raut who is also a Parliamentarian."Court pointed out that on September 5, 2020, i.e. the very...

Kangana Ranaut Vs BMC- Use Of Muscle Power Or Causing Injury By Unlawful Means To Any Person Or Their Property Cannot Be Permitted In Any Civil Society: Bombay High Court

Nitish Kashyap

Tags