The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by scholar and academician Madhu Purnima Kishwar in connection with an FIR registered by Chandigarh Police over the uploading and circulation of a social media video clip allegedly resembling the holder of a Constitutional post.
Justice Aman Chaudhary passed the order while hearing the petition filed by Kishwar, apprehending arrest in an FIR registered on April 19 at Sector 26 police station under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act.
The petitioner had sought pre-arrest bail, contending that “the only allegation against the petitioner is that she had retweeted a 14-second video clip on the social media platform, i.e., ‘X’, which was innocuous and without any ill intent”.
It was added on her behalf that the offence of forgery was not made out against her, as she was not the one who had prepared the video. “She is a seasoned academician who has authored many books and has no criminal antecedents,” her counsel added.
The Bench was also told that previous posts could not be taken into consideration as no action had been taken against her regarding those.
“She has no control over the comments others make on what she uploads/posts, thus cannot be held responsible for acts of others,” the counsel submitted, adding that the petitioner was “being wrongly roped in the present matter with which she has no direct concern and is as such entitled to concession of anticipatory bail.”
Opposing the plea, UT special public prosecutor Amit Jhanji and his team submitted that “it has been wrongly stated that there was a mere retweet by the petitioner”. The video was first uploaded by another person on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, and “the petitioner uploaded it on her ‘X’ handle after downloading the same, wherein she has a huge following, with 18 lakh persons.”
Jhanji further contended that the post “got widely circulated and received 1,74,000 views”, adding that “she not only aided in spreading misinformation, but also defamed the image of the head of the government.”
He also argued there was “every likelihood of her continuing the same in the future as well”, particularly in view of “several such tweets by her”.
After hearing rival contentions, Justice Chaudhary referred to the status report before observing that “she failed to appear” despite notices dated April 20, April 26 and May 5, which “shows her conduct of non-cooperating with the investigating agency”.
Justice Chaudhary further noted that “the video under scanner was uploaded on other social media platforms; however, as a matter of fact, it was only after the petitioner uploaded the same with her comments that it garnered 1,74,000 views and speculations were made of it resembling the holder of a Constitutional post”.
Justice Chaudhary observed: “There is, however, an obvious distinction between constructive criticism and tweeting/trolling to malign, cause aspersions and insinuations, and in case the same is by someone like the petitioner, who has a large social media following, the magnitude of the repercussions can be far from what can be fathomed.”
The court added that such posts could create disharmony, encourage separatist sentiments, and put the unity and integrity at peril. Referring to her social media presence, Justice Chaudhary added: “She, being a prominent social media personality and a scholar, as has been proclaimed on her behalf, cannot be presumed to be oblivious to the impact of such a tweet, which created a stir, as it attracted not only 1,74,000 views but even comments by other co-accused and the public at large.”
The court also took note of the State’s assertion regarding previous posts and observed: “Further, had the present been a solitary incident, one may have still given it another thought, but as has been brought out, even on previous occasions, she had been tweeting with different hashtags material/posts of sentimental sensitivity, as is depicted in the status report.”
On the issue of social media dissemination, Justice Chaudhary observed: “Given that misconceptions and misinformation can be made to spread at lightning speed with the availability of all kinds of social media applications, there comes greater social responsibility whilst creating content and forwarding the same. Where seeing becomes believing, regulatory provisions are in an emergent need.”
Justice Chaudhary further observed that the investigation was “at a nascent stage” and that “several aspects remain to be unearthed, including the origination of the post, the individuals involved in orchestrating it and the nature of the relationship and familiarity between the petitioner and the other persons concerned”.
Dismissing the petition, the court held: “It is way too soon to rule out the element of criminality involved; as such, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”
