Courts not meant for ethical policing, says SC

A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan put aside the excessive court docket’s directive that imposed the tremendous regardless of acknowledging that no felony offence was made out in opposition to the 2 for his or her social media posts on Jain monk Tarun Sagar.

“The operate of the court docket is to not do ethical policing,” the highest court docket held in its order, including that the excessive court docket had clearly upheld the petitioners’ basic proper to freedom of speech and expression beneath Article 19(1)(a) of the Structure. “After holding that no offence was made out in opposition to the appellant, there was no query of imposing value on the appellant and different petitioner,” the bench dominated.

The Supreme Courtroom stated that the excessive court docket appeared to have been “swayed” by the truth that the remarks in query had been directed at a non secular determine. “Maybe the excessive court docket was swayed by the truth that the appellant and the opposite individual arrayed as accused made criticism of a priest of one other faith,” the bench famous. It went on to say that the court docket, after quashing felony proceedings, ought to not have entered the realm of ethical commentary.

The controversy dates again to August 2016, when Dadlani and Poonawalla criticised the Haryana authorities’s choice to ask Jain monk Muni Tarun Sagar to handle the Haryana legislative meeting. The Digambar jain monk wore no garments as is the norm for monks of the sect. The duo’s feedback on Twitter (now X) — thought-about satirical by some and offensive by others — triggered a primary data report beneath Sections 295-A (deliberate acts to outrage non secular emotions), 153-A (selling enmity), and 509 (phrase, gesture or act supposed to insult the modesty of a lady) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case was registered on the Ambala Cantonment police station, and each Dadlani and Poonawalla later approached the Punjab and Haryana excessive court docket for quashing the FIR. In Might 2019, the excessive court docket Justice allowed their petitions, acknowledging that no offence had been made out. But, the excessive court docket imposed a tremendous of ₹10 lakh every, framing it as a gesture to “do justice” to the Jain group.

The court docket cited the “contribution made by Jain Muni Tarun Sagar” and criticised the petitioners for making remarks “with out having a lot to their credit score.” The excessive court docket wrote: “If the contribution made by the petitioners in direction of poor individuals is in comparison with the contribution made by Jain Muni Tarun Sagar, it’s obvious that the petitioners have performed a mischief to achieve publicity with out having a lot to their credit score.” Whereas noting the rising development of social media provocation and unrest, the excessive court docket had stated the fines would function a deterrent.

The Supreme Courtroom, nonetheless, firmly held that such conditional quashing was inappropriate when no offence was discovered. “After discovering that no offence was made out and exercising energy beneath Part 482 of CrPC (quashment of FIR), the excessive court docket ought to not have exercised the advisory jurisdiction by telling the appellant that the contribution made by the priest was far more than the appellant and different co-accused within the case,” the bench stated.

Setting apart the imposition of prices, the bench re-emphasised that judicial authority should keep inside its constitutional boundaries. “We put aside the route… directing the appellant and different petitioners earlier than the excessive court docket to pay value. The order is put aside,” the court docket dominated.