A Sessions court in Chandigarh has dismissed the bail application of Hassan Mohiuddin Siddiqi, a Telangana resident arrested in a case registered by the Chandigarh Police on April 19. The case was filed after a complaint that an obscene video was being circulated on social media with false captions and derogatory labels. The court had earlier dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of prominent writer Madhu Kishwar in the same case. The court observed that the right to free speech and expression, no doubt, is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute. “It carries with it certain responsibilities,” the order noted.
The complainant, a city resident, alleged that the viral content was intended to malign the reputation of a high-ranking constitutional authority.
The FIR has been registered under Sections 196, 356, 336(4), 353, 336(1), 336(3), 340, and 318 of the BNS, 2023, and under Sections 66-C, 66-D, and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The allegations against the accused, Hassan, are that in criminal conspiracy with others, he used his X account to circulate and disseminate misleading and scandalous information.
The accused was arrested on April 25, during the investigation. Counsel for the accused argued that the allegations were false. He said the accused did not share any morphed video clip or make any comment. “He only posed a question on his social media account to the artificial intelligence tool of X, namely Grok, to verify whether the video was genuine or not. There was absolutely no intention to malign the dignity of any constitutional authority,” the counsel submitted.
However, the special public prosecutor opposed the bail, contending that the accused circulated and disseminated misleading and scandalous information without any basis.
After hearing the arguments, the court said, “The right to free speech and expression, no doubt, is a fundamental right, but the said right is not absolute. It carries with it certain responsibilities — the responsibility of being a good, sensible, and prudent citizen who carefully evaluates the pros and cons of his words and expressions, and who does not utter words or express his views at the cost of the dignity and reputation of an individual.”
“No doubt, persons holding the highest constitutional posts are also open to criticism, but that criticism should not be destructive so as to enter the domain of defaming the highest dignitaries, with a tendency to cause public mischief,” the court added. “In this case, the utterance of the accused on social media cannot even be called criticism. Since the investigation is still pending, this court is of the view that the accused does not deserve the concession of bail,” the court concluded.
