The Allahabad high court docket has quashed a First Recordsdata Document (FIR) filed against a Twitter user who allegedly remarked that Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath had reworked the administration of the impart into “jungle Raj.”
“Expressing dissent on regulations and say enviornment within the impart is an indicator of a constitutional liberal democracy treasure ours and the same is constitutionally accumulate beneath Article 19 of the Structure (factual of freedom of speech and expression),” the court docket mentioned in its say,which was once passed on November 23.
A division bench comprising justice Pankaj Naqvi and justice Vivek Agarwal allowed a writ petition filed by Yashwant Singh, who allegedly made the remarks against UP CM on his Twitter address. It quashed an FIR dated August 2, registered against the petitioner beneath Portion 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code and Portion 66-D (offence of cheating by personation by utilizing computer handy resource) of the Recordsdata Expertise Act, 2008 at Bhognipur police living in Rama Bai Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh.
The FIR alleged that Singh outdated his Twitter address to comment that the chief minister of the impart had reworked the impart into a “jungle raj”. It also referred to abductions, calls for for ransom and murders, the FIR mentioned.
The petitioner challenged the FIR, contending that he had been effectively within his constitutional factual to freedom of speech beneath Article 19. Mere dissent does no longer amount to illegal activity and the FIR has been lodged only to coerce him to dwell expressing dissent against the impart authorities, the petitioner argued.
Quashing the FIR and the consequential court docket cases against the petitioner, the court docket mentioned: “We, after analysing the above provisions referring to allegations made within the FIR, scheme no longer safe even remotely a commission of offence beneath Portion 66-D, as the mentioned provision relates to cheating by personation. It is no longer the case of prosecution that whereas committing the overt act, the petitioner either tweeted using varied’s Twitter address…No offence beneath Portion 66-D of IT Act is made out. Insofar as Portion 500 IPC (defamation) is concerned, the same shall be no longer made out, as the alleged tweet can no longer be mentioned to tumble contained within the mischief of defamation.”