'The More You Publicise It The More You Serve Her Cause':Supreme Court Disposes Off Plea Seeking Censoring Of Kangana Ranaut's Social Media Posts

Recording that the petitioner-in-person has already instituted a private complaint for actor Kangana Ranaut's outbursts against the Sikh community over protests against the now-repealed three farm laws, and that the prayer for the clubbing of all FIRs lodged is not pressed, the Supreme Court on Friday disposed off the plea seeking censoring of her Social Media posts.The plea moved by lawyer and petitioner-in-person Sardar Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal sought a direction to Union Home Ministry, IT Ministry, TRAI and State Police Authorities of different states to take Preventive action on social media against Kangana Ranaut. The petition also prayed for all FIRs lodged against Ranaut across the country to be clubbed together and to be investigated by the Mumbai police.At the outset, Justice Chandrachud asked Mr. Chanderpal, "You want all FIRs to be clubbed and investigated exclusively by the Khar police? Who are you to do all this? You are not the accused, you are not the complainant, you are some person in the public, you are a member of the bar..."Mr. Chanderpal replied, "At the outset, your lordships may appreciate that my family is a staunch Nanakpanthi Hindu Sikh family, though registered as Hindu but we follow the Sikh tenets from childhood. In 98, I was baptised as a Sikh, and the community has a lot of impact on lakhs of people around the world, like me"Justice Chandrachud remarked, "we respect those beliefs, we respect the sensitivities of the community, please don't take it otherwise. The issue we are dealing with is a narrow issue. The FIRs may be filed against a person in five different states or 10 different states or 15 different states. You are a member of the public. You are saying that all these FIRs should be investigated by a particular agency namely the Mumbai police? This relief we cannot grant. This is not a PIL"The judge continued to observe, "If a person has said something which is the subject matter of an investigation by the police, we are not saying anything about it at all. That is being investigated by the police, subject to the rights of the accused. But we cannot carry out this function of clubbing all FIRs. If the accused comes here and says 'there are 25 FIRs in different states, please club', then we can do it but not at the behest of a third party"Justice Chandrachud indicated that another prayer in the petition is for preventive action on social media against respondent no. 17 (Ranaut), that "none of her posts should be allowed without suitable Deletion, censoring, modification to maintain law and order in the country"."Why should you come under 32 to the Supreme Court? You have remedies under the CrPC", pointed out the judgeMr. Chanderpal sought to indicate the gravity of the utterances which have been made by Ranaut.Justice Chandrachud said, "The remedy that you seek is not based on the qualitative nature of the utterances. Don't seek to prejudice the mind of the court by referring to the utterances. We have read the utterances. The question is what is the remedy. Can you come under 32 when your remedy is under the ordinary criminal process?""I have already made a formal complaint...But Can a person be permitted to be so reckless that time and again she goes to say these things that Sikhs should adopt late Mrs Indira Gandhi as a 'guru'?", urged Mr. ChanderpalAt this, Justice Chandrachud said, "Don't politicise it now by giving wind to what she has said. You are doing your cause a disservice by publicising what she has said. The more you publicise it, the more you serve her cause. So please stop repeating""It has hurt us very badly. People don't distinguish between farmers and Khalistanis. She, being an actress, comes on a social platform and says something and the people take the brunt. The 'aam aadmi' suffers. I was at the Singur border when this court stayed the farm laws. I did a lot of research, I was going to intervene before this court but the laws were stayed. I made a documentary also- I went to those areas- there was nothing Khalistani about it. It was a general farmer issue. What impact does it have on the public?", pressed Mr. Chanderpal.Justice Chandrachud noted, "For every wrong, there is a remedy. In any system governed by the rule of law, if there is a legal wrong, there is a remedy. Yes, Article 32 is a very valuable remedy provided by the Constitution. But when an ordinary remedy is available under the criminal law, we would be very circumspect of jumping into exercising 32. The wider the power, the greater the sense of responsibility, the greater the need for calibrated exercise of the wide power which is given to the judiciary under 32"."When we go to Gurudwaras, when we sit with the normal Sikhs over there, people don't distinguish between who are Khalistanis and who is a Sikh! Multiple complaints are there across the country! ", persisted Mr. Chanderpal.Justice Chandrachud stated, "I don't think the ordinary Indian does not distinguish...

'The More You Publicise It The More You Serve Her Cause':Supreme Court Disposes Off Plea Seeking Censoring Of Kangana Ranaut's Social Media Posts

Mehal Jain

Tags