In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash a chargesheet lodged in 2019 against a man named Sahil Mehra who was booked for posting derogatory content on Facebook regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Indian Army.
The bench of Justice JJ Munir observed that the statement, taken as a whole, seemed divisive and could incite insecurity within communities. The court held that such statements could incite illegal actions against public order or the state.
“Prima facie, given the totality of the context, the statements are divisive of the community and tend to promote insecurity in the minds of one community against another. These also tend to create fear or alarm amongst the public that may induce one Section of the public to commit offences against public tranquillity or the State,” the Allahabad High Court order dated 24th November reads.
Pointing to one of the statements made by accused Sahil Mehra, a native of Kiratpur and a resident of Mohalla Chauhanan, the Court stated that it may have “some kind of bearing on the morale of the Armed Forces,” adding that it “would require a more detailed probe.”
It is worth recalling that an FIR at Kiratpur police station in Bijnor was filed against Sahil Mehra in 2019 under Section 505 IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act on accusations that he was posting derogatory words against the Indian Army on his Facebook account, which could demoralise the armed forces, in addition to using disrespectful words for Prime Minister Modi.
According to the informant, Mehra’s posts fuelled enmity in society, resulting in disputes between different parts of town. After an inquiry, the police filed a chargesheet. The magistrate accepted the charges and ordered the accused to stand trial. Mehra sought remedy by petitioning the High Court to quash the chargesheet.
The Court reviewed the contents of the case diary, which included printed copies of screenshots of the offending Facebook posts, and determined that the alleged posts were made and shared with the intent to incite one class or community of persons to commit an offence against another class or community.
The Court, however, emphasised that its views were based on a prima facie impression based on a reading of the statement and were in no way a conclusion or expression of opinion on the merits of the subject, which, according to the Court, must be tried under the law.
“It is only prima facie that we are convinced that an offence not worth quashing the impugned charge sheet in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out insofar as the case under Section 505 IPC is concerned,” the Court observed.
However, in terms of the offence under Section 66 of the IT Act, the court stated that it did not appear to be prima facie made out, because none of the acts relating to a computer or computer system, such as damaging it, disrupting it, or denying access to any person, as envisaged under Section 43 of the I.T. Act, were prima facie disclosed.
As a result, the court ruled that a notice confined to the offence alleged under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 be sent to the opposing parties, with a return date of 14.12.2023. The case will now be heard on December 14.
