Justice Sumeet Goel, deciding on December 2, 2025, held that the petitioner’s conduct, as reflected in the FIR, witness statements, and electronic evidence, prima facie shows active participation in creating hostility, resentment, and communal disharmony directed at the Purvanchal community and migrant labourers in Ludhiana.

The petition was filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, seeking pre-arrest protection in FIR No. 270/2025 registered for offences under Sections 304, 196, 352, 353(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The FIR: Allegations of abusive language, threats, intimidation, and derogatory gendered slurs

The case originates from an FIR (No. 270 dated 21.10.2025, P.S. Division No. 7, Ludhiana) lodged by complainant Braj Bhushan Singh, who belongs to the Purvanchal community. He alleged that:

• Routine verbal abuse and humiliation: Both accused regularly insulted and abused Purvanchal migrants, particularly labourers and roadside vendors.
• Threats, blackmail, and intimidation of poor vendors: Co-accused Machan allegedly threatened, intimidated, and blackmailed poor workers, with the petitioner implicated in this broader course of conduct.
• Derogatory and gendered remarks about Purvanchal women: The complaint asserts that both accused made explicitly derogatory remarks about the women of the Purvanchal community, causing widespread anger and indignation.
• Speeches provoking inter-community hostility: They allegedly delivered provocative and hateful speeches aimed at creating friction between Punjabi and Purvanchal communities.

To reinforce the credibility of the allegations, the complainant submitted a memorandum signed by numerous members of the community, demonstrating collective concern and the seriousness of the impact.

Digital Evidence: The pen drive and the viral interview

During the inquiry before registration of the FIR, the complainant handed over a pen-drive containing a video interview recorded by co-accused Machan.

Justice Goel notes that this digital material revealed:

• Explicit communal targeting: The petitioner allegedly claimed that migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar bring large quantities of ganja to Punjab and sell it in Ludhiana.
• Gendered slurs and moral policing: He allegedly stated that women of the Purvanchal community are involved in flesh trade.
• Statements projecting migrants as a threat: He purportedly claimed that migrants are now “ruling Punjab”, suggesting cultural takeover or demographic dominance.
• Viral circulation and public reaction: The enquiry showed that the hate-filled interview went viral on social media, resulting in widespread resentment among the Purvanchal community and creating a potential for law-and-order disturbance.

These statements, the Court noted, became viral on social media, generating substantial resentment within the community and creating a potential for law-and-order disruption.

Alleged incident of waylaying and mobile phone snatching

The Court also relied on the statement of witness Nitin Kumar recorded under Section 180 BNSS. He stated that on September 24, 2025, the petitioner, co-accused Machan, and some Nihang persons:

• surrounded and threatened him and one Mukesh Kumar, and
• snatched his mobile phone

This aspect, the Court observed, showed that the petitioner’s alleged conduct was not limited to speech-related offences, but extended to physical intimidation and obstruction.

Petitioner’s Defence: False implication and cross-version case

Counsel for the petitioner advanced a series of arguments:

1. False implication with no direct involvement: The petitioner claimed he had been falsely roped in through a supplementary statement.
2. Case arising out of cross-versions: It was argued that the incident was merely a verbal altercation outside the police station between Punjabi and Purvanchal groups, leading to FIRs from both sides.
3. No recovery needed; no threat of absconsion: He contended that:

• nothing incriminating was left to be recovered,
• custodial interrogation was unnecessary,
• he was unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence.

4. Allegations vague and malicious: The defence insisted that the statements attributed to him were vague, motivated, and exaggerated.

Justice Goel noted these submissions but found them insufficient in light of the investigation material.

State’s Stand: Strong incriminating material, witness statements, and criminal antecedents

The State vigorously opposed the plea, pointing to:

1. Prima facie digital evidence of hate speech: The viral interview contained abusive, humiliating, caste-targeted, and communal remarks.
2. Witness statements supporting intimidation: Nitin Kumar’s testimony confirmed physical intimidation and mobile snatching.
3. Criminal antecedents of the petitioner: The petitioner was earlier named in FIR No. 118/2021 (Mohali) involving offences under Sections 120-B, 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 298 IPC, all related to communal tension and public order.
4. Need to identify others involved: The State argued custodial interrogation was essential to-

• identify other co-participants,
• verify the source of recordings,
• trace circulation patterns,
• recover devices or data.

The State argued that custodial interrogation was essential to identify other persons involved, recover material, and scrutinise electronic evidence. Justice Goel accepted the State’s submissions.

Court’s Reasoning: Speech, social harm, and the public order threshold

Application of Speech Act Theory: The judgment is notable for introducing Speech Act Theory (by Austin and Searle) into the anticipatory bail context. Justice Goel observed: “Utterances must be examined not just for their literal meaning but for the communicative intention and the action they convey.” (Para 6)

He emphasised the three-layered nature of speech:

• Locutionary act — the words spoken
• Illocutionary act — the intention behind the words
• Perlocutionary act — the effect on the audience

Applying this framework, the Court found that the petitioner’s alleged statements had a perlocutionary capacity to provoke hostility and disturb communal peace.

Material not confined to a “roadside altercation”: The Court held that:

• This was not a minor quarrel or isolated outburst.
• It involved systematic targeting, with real potential to disturb public order, community relations, and societal peace.

Supplementary naming no ground to dilute evidence: The defence argument that the petitioner was named only through a supplementary statement was rejected as insufficient to discard the digital and testimonial material emerging from the investigation.

Seriousness of offence and societal impact: The Court stressed that the alleged speech-

• was not limited to individual harm,
• but created a sense of insecurity within the community at large,
• required a strong judicial response to prevent recurrence.

Necessity of custodial interrogation: The Court relied on State v. Anil Sharma (1997), reiterating that “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented… interrogation with the protection of pre-arrest bail often reduces to a mere ritual.” (Para 9)

Justice Goel held that:

• effective investigation requires custodial questioning,
• particularly when electronic evidence and multiple actors are involved,
• a pre-arrest bail order would severely undermine the inquiry.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail denied, petition dismissed

Given the gravity of allegations, the substantial digital evidence, and the requirement of custodial interrogation, the Court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve anticipatory bail. It held:

• A prima facie case is clearly made out.
• The material gathered justifies custodial interrogation.
• No grounds exist to believe the petitioner was falsely implicated.
• Granting anticipatory bail would impede effective investigation and undermine communal harmony.

Accordingly, the Court ordered:

“The material on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.” (Para 9)

“Considering the gravity of allegations, the nature of the evidence collected so far and the requirement of effective investigation, and the necessity of the custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.” (Para 10)

All pending applications were also disposed of, with the Court cautioning that its observations should not be construed as findings on the merits of the case.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:                      

A New Silence: The Supreme Court’s turn toward non-interference in hate-speech cases

Unveiling the diverse impact of Hate Speech: From elections to escalating violence

Hate speeches, stone pelting, brandishing of weapons – what VHP’s Shaurya Yatras have achieved till date

India’s Struggle for Social Harmony: Challenges Amidst Surge in Hate Speech

Three separate benches of the Indian Supreme Court interrogate hate speech

CJP writes to Minorities Commission over repeated attacks on Muslims

The post Punjab & Haryana High Court refuses anticipatory bail to journalist accused of provocative, communal statements against Purvanchal community appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This ruling strikes at the heart of the principle of bail in India, which is that bail is a form of liberty, not detention. This is immediately relevant to persons from marginalized groups, such as migrant workers, students, journalists, and activists, who may be accused in one place, and effectively incarcerated for lack of “local” surety.

What is surety and local Surety?

In the bail system in India, the surety is the individual who agrees to take responsibility for the person on bail in terms of adherence to the bail conditions and ensuring he/she attend court. The surety can also provide a financial bond that may be forfeited in case the person appears in court. The rationale behind the surety regime is to guard the civilian character of the accused, whilst ensuring justice is secured.

The complication comes when the courts are strict about requiring a local surety — someone residing within the jurisdiction of the trial court, or within the state. This requirement is often justified by reasons of convenience (i.e., a local surety is easier to monitor/enforce against), but this also tends to create an insurmountable barrier. For an accused person who is a migrant worker, a student, a journalist, or an activist facing trial, finding a local surety can often be impossible. Even when an accused person may have supportive family or friends elsewhere in India, geography prevents an individual from obtaining their liberty.

The judgment at a glance

This judgment deals with a critical question that arises in a bail case — the constitutionality of imposing “local sureties.” In this case, two people from Kolkata were booked in Gurugram under the cheating and forgery provisions of the IPC. They were alleged to have submitted forged local surety documents to obtain bail. In the FIR against them, they challenged whether the requirement for a local surety document was unconstitutional, and therefore, any action for submitting a false document was a violation of their constitutional rights.

Justice Sumeet Goel had the following clear view of the matter. He said:

“Mandating furnishing of a local surety’ from an individual who is a native or resident of another district/State is not merely a logistical inconvenience; it is a profound assault on his fundamental rights and tantamount to imposition of an unduly onerous condition, which is, in itself, a de facto denial of the right to bail – which ought to be accompanied by a practical means of securing it, not by insurmountable hurdles.” (Para 6.1) 5                  

It was said to violate the equality guarantee of Article 14, curtailed the right to reside and movement under Article 19, and most significantly, created an illusory right to bail under Article 21. Liberty, it added, cannot be conditional on geography.

Supreme Court precedents on bail and liberty

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling in Sumit Sharma v. State of Haryana is entirely consistent with a long line of Supreme Court decisions that have affirmed bail as an important aspect of personal liberty while cautioning against the imposition of unreasonably complicated conditions that can make bail illusory.

In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court addressed the plight of thousands of undertrial prisoners who had languished in jail for years for want of bail. The Court identified bail as central to Article 21, holding that the “right to a speedy trial” and access to liberty through bail are both fundamental rights. This case laid the groundwork to treat bail as a constitutional entitlement that must be made practicably available, not just a matter of judicial discretion.

In Moti Ram v. State of M.P. (1978), one year earlier, Justice Krishna Iyer wrote a scathing denunciation of unreasonable bail conditions. He criticized the insistence upon local sureties, calling it “geographical discrimination” that unfairly penalized those who were not able to produce local connections. Justice Iyer said that bail conditions must be “humane, reasonable and must correspond to the socio-economic conditions of the accused” and that liberty was not something that could be held hostage to wealth or place of residence.

In Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2017), the Court similarly struck down the harsh twin bail conditions included in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as discriminatory and contrary to Article 14, holding that laws or practices that arbitrarily restrict individual liberty are unconstitutional, even in serious economic offences.

In a more recent case, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the Supreme Court laid out some comprehensive instructions for trial courts, warning them against imposing onerous bail conditions that frustrate liberty. In its judgment, the Court reminded us that bail is the rule and jail is the exception and that bail conditions must not render release impractical or impossible.

Taken together, these decisions evidence a consistent judicial trend to avoid reducing bail to an empty formality. The Sumit Sharma decision continues this trend and reinforces the constitutional principle that requires that bail conditions should facilitate liberty, not frustrate it.

On ground impact and implications

The abstract principle against excessive bail conditions becomes particularly vivid when viewed through lived experience. The extended incarceration of journalist Siddique Kappan serves as a potent illustration. Once the Supreme Court granted him bail, he remained incarcerated for weeks, unable to furnish local sureties in Uttar Pradesh. For someone who had been found entitled to liberty by a court, this amounted to unjustified detention. Other similar situations arise for migrant workers charged in states where they do not have family or social ties; students who are studying away from home; and activists being prosecuted in jurisdictions far from home. In these cases, the inability to produce a local guarantor effectively converts a bail order into an empty promise.

The scope of the problem is evident in the statistics compiled by prisons. Data from the NCRB tells us that more than 75% of India’s prison population is comprised of undertrials. Many of these individuals are incarcerated because the imposed conditions make bail impossible, not because the courts denied bail applications. The bail conditions in many cases are impossible for undertrials to comply with (local sureties, high bond amounts, etc.). By invalidating the requirement for local sureties, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has eliminated one structural factor contributing to the problem of undertrials in India.

Although this judgment is decided on the particular circumstances of the two accused in Gurugram, its significance reaches far beyond those specific facts. It affirms the principle that liberty cannot be stratified by geography. The ruling returns to the premise that a requirement of local sureties should not be within the discretion of the trial judge since the Court had affirmed that bail conditions must be available to all, and not just those able to produce local social or economic capital. The ruling reframed the conversation away from privilege and toward access, recognizing that bail must have meaning in practice, not just on paper. In particular, the ruling reaffirmed that bail conditions must serve their limited purpose only: to assist in compelling attendance at trial; any condition beyond that limited purpose would be seen as transgressing meaningfully with constitutional values.

The ruling has transformative potential for vulnerable groups. Migrant workers, students, journalists, or activists, disadvantaged by local surety requirements, now have better protection against a system that deemed liberty local. The ruling expresses that constitutional rights and not a friend’s address book determine access to freedom.

Although only effective in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh, this judgment has a persuasive effect across India. Many states, although informally, still require local sureties, and trial courts frequently impose them almost reflexively. This judgment assists in challenging such requirements in many jurisdictions, as we further embrace substantive liberty at the cost of procedural requirements and liberty denial. Much like the Supreme Court’s decision to strike unconscionable bail conditions under the PMLA, High Courts throughout India can now dispense with arbitrary requirements for local sureties, advancing bail law towards fairer and more just outcomes for all parties involved.

Meaningful and Accessible Bail

The decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in this case is more than just a matter of technical tinkering; it is a reaffirmation of the constitutional vision of liberty. By invalidating the locally-sourced surety requirement, the Court has disrupted a pattern that had disproportionately affected migrants, students, and activists—one that frequently transformed bail into a right that was little more than an illusion. Rooted in Articles 14, 19 and 21, and drawn from decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the decision announces that liberty cannot be based on geography, privilege or social capital. While the authority of the judgment is limited to the Punjab & Haryana Region, it can serve as a model for courts in to determine, and impose, bail conditions and terms of release that are fair, accessible, and tied to the bail’s legitimate purpose—to ensure the accused will return for trial. If adopted nationwide, the reasoning could ameliorate India’s undertrial crisis, restore dignity to the criminal justice process, and bring the criminal justice process closer to its constitutional promise of equality, freedom, and fraternity.

The entire judgment in Sumit Sharma & Anr. V. State of Haryana can be read here:

The judgment in Tarachand Shah v. Union of India can be read here:

The judgment in Moti Ram v. State of M.P. can be read here:

The judgment in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar can be read here:

The judgment in Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI can be read here:

Related

SC once again seeks DLSA intervention to ensure that under trials unable to provide surety are released from prison

Not Proscribed, Not Prima Facie: The labyrinth of bail under UAPA

How authorities skirt legal boundaries between bail and jail

“Illegal detention not even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders immediate release of bail-compliant detainee in Assam

The post Equality Behind Bars: Why Local Surety Requirements Are Unconstitutional appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The said plea has been moved by Uday Pratap Singh, a Chandigarh based lawyer, to urge judicial intervention and issuance of an urgent interim order to stay these “obstructive actions”. It is also essential to note that through the said petition, the plea has also raised questions against the suspension of mobile internet services and bulk SMS in several districts of Haryana including Ambala, Kurukshetra, Kaithal, Jind, Hisar, Fatehabad, and Sirsa. As per a report of LiveLaw, the petition has highlighted that these suspension of services “further exacerbate the situation, depriving the citizens of their right to information and communication.”

The petitioner has also emphasised upon the constant denial of the authorities to hear and take action on the demands being raised by the farmers in regards to Minimum Support Price. As per a report in LiveLaw, the petitioner has stated “The arbitrary and illegal non-payment of Minimum Support Price sparked a deep sense of discontentment and betrayal among the hardworking farmers of the state. This unjust decision inflicted trauma upon the impoverished farming community. Despite the farmers’ pleas for the government to honour their rightful demand for at least the minimum support price (MSP) for their produce, the authorities have turned a deaf ear to their concerns.” 

Claiming the actions being undertaken by the State to be violative of the fundamental rights of citizens to move freely and assemble peaceful, guaranteed to citizens under Article 19 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks for an independent inquiry into alleged arbitrary actions, including police intimidation and installation of obstacles.

Meanwhile, a meeting between the farm leaders and three members of the Union cabinet is supposedly taking place in Chandigarh. These ministers, namely Piyush Goyal (Food Minister), Arjun Munda (Union Agriculture Minister) and Nityanand Rai (Minister of State for Home Affairs), are holding a second round of these talks with the farmer leaders to address their concerns and demands. It is essential to note that at the first talk, the three ministers had told the farmers that their demands could not be accepted without consulting multiple Ministries.

Many detained, many face hurdles in reaching Delhi

As per a report of The Telegraph, around a hundred farmers from Karnataka, who were travelling in train to Delhi with the aim of taking part in the scheduled protest, were stopped at Bhopal by the state police. These claims were made by Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) South India Convenor Shanthakumar during a press conference. As per the report, Shanthakumar stated that he was also travelling with the group in the train and “the police stopped us at the Bhopal station, and some of our members were injured,” as per Telegraph. Shanthakumar also provided that he was somehow able to reach the national capital still.

At the same conference meeting, Shanthakumar also clarified that around 23 Mahapanchayat meetings had been held across the country before announcing the march, and the protest had been planned three months before and were not spontaneous.

As per a report of the Hindu, SKM- Non-Political leader Shiv Kumar Kakka, who is also a former RSS functionary, had been detained by the Madhya Pradesh police on February 11. Kakka was on his way to Chandigarh when the said arrest had taken place. As per his statement, Kakka was about to board a train to participate in the second round of talks with the union ministers. According to the Hindu report, Kakka said “I was about to board a train to Chandigarh to participate in Monday’s discussions. I was arrested and taken to the police station. I understand that hundreds of SKM-NP’s activists have also been sent to jail. I was released after three hours. But I will go to Chandigarh at any cost to participate in the protests. The Centre is vitiating the atmosphere by arresting farmers.” 

A report of Naiduniya reported that farmer leaders of the United Kisan Morcha and its associated organizations were being arrested in different districts of Madhya Pradesh. The report asserts that about 150 farmer leaders of the state have been detained at the police station, while many are being sent to jail. As provided by the report, Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU) state president Anil Yadav was arrested from MP Nagar Bhopal police station, Mahendra Singh Tomar from Rajgarh, senior Kisan Sabha leader Ramnarayan Kureria from Jabalpur. District Vice President of Kisan Sangharsh Committee in Gwalior, Shatrughan Yadav and Shiv Kumar Kakka have been arrested in Bhopal. 

Rakesh Tikait, farmer leader and national spokesperson of BKU, took to ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) to express his anguish at the arrest of farmer leaders by the authorities of Madhya Pradesh and demand their release. In his post, Tikait stated “On the instructions of the Central Government, the state president of Madhya Pradesh Anil Yadav and Aradhana Bhargava have been arrested by the police and sent to jail. The government wants to make Bharat Bandh unsuccessful and suppress the voice of farmers. The government should release them with immediate effect.”

His post can be viewed here:

केंद्र सरकार के इशारे पर मध्य प्रदेश में @OfficialBKU के प्रदेश अध्यक्ष अनिल यादव और आराधना भार्गव को पुलिस ने गिरफ्तार कर जेल भेज दिया है सरकार भारत बंद को असफल व किसानों की आवाज को दबाना चाहती है सरकार इन्हें तत्काल प्रभाव से रिहा करें।@CMMadhyaPradesh@DGP_MP@PMOIndia@ANI

— Rakesh Tikait (@RakeshTikaitBKU) February 11, 2024

In addition to this, Indore saw leaders associated with farmer organizations being made to sit in the police station, including the Depalpur and Saver police stations, on the morning of February 12. It was asserted by them that the arrests of the farmer leaders were a part of the government’s attempt to stop the march to Delhi by the United Kisan Morcha on February 13 and to suppress the call for Gramin Bharat Bandh on February 16. It has been alleged by many that the state police also arrested houses of farm leaders late in the evenings of February 11. 

Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah also posted on ‘X’ regarding the detention of the famer leaders and highlighted the intimidation tactic of the BJP-led state government of Madhya Pradesh. In his post, Siddaramaiah condemned the said detentions and wrote “By arresting and intimidating them, the farmers’ struggle cannot be suppressed. Such repression might only lead more farmers to take to the streets, but the struggle of the sons and daughters of the soil will not cease. If the central government truly cares about peace and order, it should immediately meet the demands of the farmers and resolve the issue, rather than repressing and brutalizing them to silence. Whether it’s at the center or in the states, whenever BJP comes to power, history bears witness that their first act of aggression is against the farmers. The first time BJP came to power in Karnataka, farmers asking for fertilizer were ruthlessly shot down by the government led by B.S. Yediyurappa. Several farmers died due to the violence inflicted on protesting farmers in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh by Narendra Modi’s government at the center.”

His post can be viewed here:

The arrest of Hubballi farmers by the Madhya Pradesh government, as they were heading to a protest in Delhi tomorrow, is highly condemnable.

I demand that the Madhya Pradesh government immediately release all the farmers from our state who have been arrested and allow them to…

— Siddaramaiah (@siddaramaiah) February 12, 2024

Another protest by farmers announced, this time by SKM

The original SKM, which had super headed the previous one year long farmers protest against the three controversial farm laws, have also announced a rural and industrial strike on February 16, in collaboration with ten Central Trade Unions (CTUs). As per the report of the Hindu, in a joint statement here on Sunday, the SKM and the unions urged the Narendra Modi-led union government to learn lessons from the growing discontent among the farming community and workers of European countries and reconsider its pro-corporate policies, which are being intensified in India.

“SKM has strongly objected to the policy proposed by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to permit corporate forces, including trans-national corporations, to take over post-harvest operations in agriculture, control and dominate food production, and the value-added consumer product market. Corporate agriculture is not a panacea for the agrarian crisis; rather, it will further deteriorate the plight of the farmers and workers in India,” the statement said.

In furtherance to this, the SKM has also asserted said that the rural bandh on February 16 would take place from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m., with all agricultural activities, works under MGNREGA scheme, and other rural and farm works being boycotted. “The supply and purchase of vegetables, other crops will remain suspended; all the village shops, grain markets, vegetable markets, government and non-government offices, rural, industrial and service sector institutions and enterprises in private sector are requested to remain closed. The shops and establishments of towns remain closed for the strike hours,” the SKM said, as per the Hindu, adding that normal public and private transport would remain off the roads.

“Ensure passage to emergency services of ambulance, death, marriage, medical shops, newspaper supply, board exam candidates, and passengers to the airport,” the SKM said in the statement.

Related:

Govandi slum demolition: Temporary halt after protests outside BMC office by residents, those rendered homeless to rebuild their homes at the same site

Delhi, Punjab CMs, INDIA leaders join Kerala’s protest against Centre’s policies, TN MPs wear black robes too

Farmers in Noida, Greater Noida are protesting, which are the farmer unions are leading them

Freezing temperatures do not stop thousands in Leh from protesting to demand statehood, constitutional protections

The post Farmer leaders detained in Madhya Pradesh, made to sit at police stations, saw police raids at night- attempts to stop farmers from joining protest intensify appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Anoop Chitkara further asserted that in the pursuit of uncovering truth and perform their sacrosanct duty towards the citizenry, journalists face many hurdles, calling for all courts to be more vigilant and proactive while safeguarding the interests of such courageous humans.

In his order, Justice Chitkara held “Journalism is the fourth pillar of any Democracy. As a journalist the reporter’s sacrosanct duty is loyalty towards the citizenry. They serve as independent monitors of power, reporting information for public good and safety, addressing any problems or lacunae in the public system for its effective functioning and immediate redressal. In the fearless pursuit of their duties to uncover the truth and report such facts to the masses through media, these brave journalists do face various hurdles. e.g. pressures from influential parties, groups, or government agencies etc.” (Para 38)

The said summons had been issued against former editor Vipin Pubby and resident editor Manraj Grewal of Indian Express, news dailies Ajit and Ajit Samachar managing editor Barjinder Singh Hamdard, among others based on a case lodged by retired Indian Police Service officer Param Vir Rathee.

Brief details of the 2008 criminal defamation case:

In his defamation complaint in a Gurgaon court in 2008, Rathee had accused 18 major newspapers, particularly mentioning a news item in The Indian Express titled “Accused says he bribed ADGP, sought police protection”, which was published on June 17, 2008. The retired IPS officer had alleged that the newspaper published a defamatory article as the same had mentioned that an accused in a criminal case, namely Dr. Sandeep Sharma, had allegedly confessed before the CBI that Rathee had recommended police protection to them after taking a bribe. It had also explicitly carried Rathee’s denial.

The petitioners had moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as aggrieved by the dismissal of the criminal revision petition by the Sessions Court of Gurugram, refusing to quash the summons issued in the complaint filed for criminal defamation.

Contentions raised by the parties:

It was the contention of the petitioner that the news report was carried out in good faith in the public interest and based on information provided by CBI officials and their report. The journalist belonging to their publication, had not only interacted with the complainant but also mentioned his viewpoint. Among the contentions of the petitioners, Vipin Pubby and Manraj Grewal through their Advocate Mr Manu K Bhandari, submitted that the complaint has been pending since 2008, and the complainant delayed its proceedings, they were not at fault, and were facing the trauma of criminal proceedings.

On the other hand, it was argued by the complainant-respondent that the newspaper had published a false and defamatory statement. It was also contented by the counsel for the complainant that even after they had realised that said CBI had not arrested Sandeep Sharma, and as such, his confessing before CBI was out of the question, and consequently, there was no occasion to the complainant recommending his police protection, no corrective measure was opted by the petitioner.

Observations by the Court:

In the detailed judgement of Justice Chitkara, it was held that the reporter, Varun Chaddha, and the publisher, Indian Express, acted within the parameters of prudence and reasonableness, making them entitled to publish whatever they wrote under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

In the judgement, the bench wrote “The reporter and the newspaper did their jobs without committing any offense under section 499 IPC because they exercised restraints, and the news had the inbuilt safeguards, due care and caution, and reasonableness in the reported news. The reporter, Varun Chaddha, and the publisher, Indian Express, acted within the parameters of prudency and reasonableness, and whatever they wrote, they were entitled to publish under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 39)

In addition to this, the Court observed that from a bare reading of the investigative journalism report published in Indian Express shows that the complainant’s version was also reflected in it. The court pointed that in regards to this, the complainant had nowhere stated that his version was incorrectly mentioned or that the journalist had withheld its material aspects. Justice Chitkara further added that the complainant did not plead in the complaint or establish in his testimony in the preliminary evidence any reasons or objectives for any oblique motive, malice, ill-will, mala fide intention of the petitioner, or intention to defame him.

In its judgement, the court noted “There is a conspicuous silence about it in the complaint, the statement before the court, and the reply filed to this petition. The following news extracts corroborate the unbiases and point out that the reporting had mentioned and highlighted the complainant’s response and the supporting version of the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula,” the Court added. (Para 23)

Noting that the journalist had taken the complaint’s view into account before publishing the report and had mentioned it in the news item, the court observed that it depicted the journalists adhered to the ethical standards of reasonableness and impartiality, which are key to journalism.

“One of the foundational responsibilities of a journalist is to seek the truth and report it with caution while not distorting or manipulating any facts. The respective journalist cross-checked the information, ascertained it, and explicitly mentioned the complainant’s version to rule out whether the facts were true or mere concocted lies or rumors,” the judgment stated added. (Para 24)

In the same para, the bench held that the accurate reporting by the journalist, by employing due care and caution, provides the court with no reason to not accept it as discharge of their burden. In the judgment, the court noted “This cross-checking and accurate reporting of the complainant’s version demonstrates the journalist’s sense of responsibility and decency while prudently discharging his duties. What more can be expected from a journalist? The reporting itself proves by a preponderance of probability of due care and caution, and there is no reason why it should not be accepted as the discharging of their burden by the petitioner under S. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” (Para 24)

Consequently, the Court opined that, “the Indian Express, its reporter, and its Editors are entitled to benefit under the first and the ninth exceptions to S. 499 IPC, and the petitioner has discharged his primary burden by demonstrating the contents of the news report itself and is entitled to the benefit of the first and ninth exception of S. 499 IPC.” (Para 24)

With this, the single-judge asserted that courts must be more vigilant and proactive while safeguarding the interests of journalists, and that in the “fearless pursuit of their duties”, brave journalists face pressures from influential parties or government agencies.

Decision of the Court:

The court stated that the reporter and the newspaper accused of criminal defamation did their jobs without committing any offense under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code because they exercised restraints, and the news had the inbuilt safeguards, due care and caution, and reasonableness in the reported news. The Bench added that “The reporter of Indian Express had explicitly mentioned the complainant’s denial and the corroboration of such denial from the SP Panchkula. A wholesome and complete reading by an ordinary prudent person would neither discredit nor lower the complainant’s image. However, if the witnesses read this news with coloured spectacles, the report cannot be made liable for such misunderstanding.” (Para 33)

Furthermore, the court held that even after the full reading of the restrictions are imposed, then it would be averse to the freedoms guaranteed to us. Bench held in its order that, “A complete reading of the news, which contained the complainant’s rebuttal, his version, the version of the police, can be stated to have been published in good faith and discharge of their functions in a democracy, and if restrictions are created to publish such news, it would be just like killing a mockingbird.” (Para 45)

The court observed that neither the Indian Express nor its Editor (Petitioner) can be held responsible for the subsequent news reports published in other newspapers. With this, the bench of the High Court quashed the summons and all subsequent proceedings as well as the previous judgment passed in the criminal revision by the lower court.

The complete judgment can be read here:

Related:

GoI targeted Apple days after the Hi-tech cos notified journalists & opposition politicians of phone hacking: Washington Post Exclusive

Delhi: Protest meeting on journalists rights and democratic rights

Stop treating journalists like terrorists, media unions tell government as the 17th Lok Sabha begins

State-sponsored attacks of surveillance reveal an erosion on Indians’ right to privacy, especially journalists, political opposition

The post Punjab & Haryana HC: “Journalism is civilisation’s mirror, and investigative journalism its X-ray” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bulldozers were halted in Nuh on Monday on what would have been the fifth day of demolition of properties with alleged links to rioters after the Punjab & Haryana high court took suo motu cognisance of newspaper reports and stepped in.

A division bench of justices G S Sandhawalia and Harpreet Kaur Jeewan observed that clearly, without any demolition orders and notices, the law-and-order problem was being used as a ruse to bring down buildings without following due process of law.

“The issue also arises whether the buildings belonging to a particular community are being brought down under the guise of law-and-order problem and an exercise of ethnic cleansing is being conducted by state. We are of the considered opinion that the Constitution of India protects the citizens of this country and no demolition as such can be done without following the procedure prescribed in law,” Justice Sandhawalia observed.

The court restrained the Haryana government from carrying out any such demolition drive if procedure is not followed as per the law. In the demolition drives that began in Nuh last Thursday as the government began a crackdown on those allegedly involved in the July 31 communal clashes when a mob targeted a religious yatra, Nuh administration sources said about 350 structures have been razed so far.

Taking strong exception to statements made by state home minister Anil Vij that bulldozers were part of the “ilaaj (treatment)” since the government was probing communal violence, the high court quoted British historian Lord Acton and observed, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Referring to the media reports on bulldozer drives in Nuh, the court said, “The action is stated to be on account of the fact that the individuals involved in the anti-social activities had made illegal constructions. The said news item would go on to show that buildings next to the hospital in the form of commercial buildings, residential buildings, restaurants which were in existence for a long time have been brought down by bulldozers.”

Issuing a notice to the Haryana government, the bench directed the authorities to furnish an affidavit as to how many buildings have been demolished in the last two weeks, both in Nuh and Gurgaon, and whether any notice was issued before the demolitions. It scheduled the next hearing on August 11 and also appointed advocate Kshitij Sharma as amicus curiae to assist the court on the issue.

Meanwhile, Nuh deputy commissioner Dhirendra Khadgata told TOI the demolition has been stopped after the court order. “The court has asked whether due process has been followed for demolition and directed the government to file a reply by August 11. We have followed the due process and will file our reply accordingly,” he said.

Excerpts from Punjab & Haryana High Court Order:

Referring to news published in the Indian Express and Times of India, the Order says:

“The news item also says that the Home Minister himself has said that bulldozer are part of illaj (treatment) since the Government is probing communal violence. The said news items are appending alongwith the file for ready reference. Lord Acton has stated “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

“It is in such circumstances, we are constrained to issue notice to State as it has come to our notice that the State of Haryana is using force and is demolishing buildings on account of the fact that some riots have occurred

“Apparently, without any demolition orders and notices, the law and order problem is being used as a ruse to bring down buildings without following the procedure established by law. The issue also arises whether the buildings belonging to a particular community are being brought down under the guise of law and order problem and an exercise of ethnic cleansing is being conducted by the State.

“We are of the considered opinion that the Constitution of India protects the citizens of this country and no demolitions as such can be done without following the procedure prescribed in law. Accordingly, we issue directions to the State of Haryana to furnish an affidavit as to how many buildings have been demolished in last two weeks, both in Nuh and Gurugram and whether any notice was issued before demolition.

“If any such demolition is to be carried out today, it should be stopped if the procedure is not followed as per law. To come up on 11.08.2023.”

Background:

What started in Uttar Pradesh a few years back has now spread to the state of Haryana, where communal flare-ups are being followed by demolition drives against “encroachers” and “rioters”. After a “clash” was reported to have taken place in Nuh, Haryana on July 31 during the annual religious procession taken out by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad- Bajrang Dal, the Haryana government has resorted to bulldozing houses. As per a report in the Telegraph, the Bharatiya Janata Party government in Haryana has bulldozed around 250 shanties of “illegal” immigrants from Bangladesh in the Muslim-dominated Nuh district. The police has provided that majority of bulldozed houses belonged to people booked as accused in the recent communal violence. As per a report in the Economic Times, the Haryana Urban Development Authority have been carrying out the demolitions.

On August 5, several establishments in Tauru, about 20 km from violence-hit Nuh, were also razed down by bulldozers. As reported by India Today, the authorities have again confirmed that residents of these “illegal” establishments were those who were “allegedly” involved in the riots that took place on July 31. Structures and shanties near Nuh’s SKM Government Medical College have also been demolished.

In addition to this, the authorities have also bulldozed five houses on the way to Nalhar temple, as per the Economic Times. As provided by the police, 14 youths from this community were engaged in pelting stones.

As per the India Today report, Nuh’s SDM Ashwini Kumar provided that the demolition drives are taking place on the orders of Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar. “This is on the orders of the CM. All of this is illegal construction. These people were involved in the riots,” Kumar stated.

Related:

Encroachment or rioting, what was the offence of the ones whose houses were bulldozed in Haryana?

Sikhs helped trapped Muslim women and children escape mob violence

Lives lost in Nuh violence, a failure on the part of the Haryana police and government?

CJP petitions NCM and DGP, Haryana as anti-minority violence spreads takes grip in the state

Nuh Haryana: Who cast the first stone?

Communal violence erupts in Nuh, Mewat, five killed, provocations by VHP-Bajrang Dal continue

Nuh Clashes planned and coordinated, more such violence likely before 2024 Polls: Satyapal Malik

Union MOS Home questions arms allowed in ‘religious’ procession at Nuh, Haryana: Rao Inderjit Singh

The post ‘Ethnic cleansing by State?’ HC stops Haryana’s Nuh & Gurugram demolitions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On December 4, a Division Bench of Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash took note of the five cremation grounds that have been earmarked for different communities in Panjokhara village situated in the Ambala District.

Mr. Ranjit Saini represented the petitioners in Jaswant Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 20810 of 2020).  

The Bench has sought response from the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala with regard to such divisions of the society and the common authority, “who shall administer all the said cremation grounds so as to remove the apprehension of the petitioners that they would not be permitted to avail the benefit of the existing cremation grounds for cremation of members of their communities.”

Further, the High Court directed the Deputy Advocate General (Haryana), Shruti Jain Goyal to do the needful.

Background

This matter of five different cremation grounds belonging to different castes was brought to the High Court’s notice after one Jaswant Kumar and seven other villagers claimed that Brahmins, Sikhs and Backward Classes had separate cremation grounds in the area, as per a report of The Tribune.

The petitioners and other members of the community claimed before the High Court that they were left without the right to perform the last rites of departed souls as all five cremation grounds in the village were community wise.

They sought the quashing of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated September 11, 2020 wherein the application of the petitioners was rejected in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, based on the presumption that there was no cremation ground as mentioned in their complaint. The petitioners added that the same stood ‘illegally demolished’ with the help of earth movers.

During the December 4 hearing, the petitioners prayed for a direction to the State officials to restore the cremation ground belonging to them and other residents of the Backward Classes.

The matter has now been listed for hearing on January 13, 2021.

The order may be read here:

Nat woman denied cremation at ‘upper’ caste funeral ground in UP
Christians not being allowed burials, forced to cremate in Mumbai?

The post Discrimination after death: Punjab and Haryana HC raises questions over different cremation grounds appeared first on SabrangIndia.