The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a Superintending Engineer of UHBVNL in a case alleging objectionable and derogatory remarks against a particular community. The bench made it clear that spoken words did not merely convey meaning but also performed actions and produce consequences.
“Words have a consequential meaning; they carry an emotional, psychological and even a physical impact. Intentions are carried through the words. That is why the learned wise people caution that words be spoken with care lest they cause an altercation, misunderstanding or even a heartbreak,” Justice Sumeet Goel asserted while dismissing the plea filed by Geetu Ram Tanwar.
He had moved the court seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered on April 10 at a police station in Sonepat after a video clip allegedly containing objectionable remarks against a particular community, circulated on social media, became viral in the area.
The bench was told that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie reflected that objectionable and derogatory remarks targeting a particular community were made in the course of the conversation, in which the petitioner was an active participant. The language allegedly used was not only abusive in nature but also prima facie capable of inciting resentment, hostility and communal disharmony against a specific community.
Justice Goel asserted that a person occupying a public position was “expected to maintain restraint, uphold constitutional morality and exhibit sensitivity towards all sections of society irrespective of caste, creed or religion”.
Rejecting the contention that the conversation was private in nature, Justice Goel asserted: “The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the conversation was private in nature cannot, at this stage, dilute the seriousness of the allegations, particularly when the contents thereof entered the public domain and allegedly generated communal tension in the area.”
Referring to the petitioner’s position in the power utility, Justice Goel added: “It is apt to mention herein that the petitioner admittedly holds the post of Superintending Engineer in UHBVNL and is a senior public functionary entrusted with responsibilities affecting the public at large.”
The court further observed the use of derogatory and abusive remarks against a particular community, when allegedly made by a public servant holding a position of authority, assumed greater significance and carried a potential social impact.”
Invoking the “Speech Act Theory” propounded by John Searle and JL Austin, Justice Goel underlined the impact of spoken words, Justice Goel added: “Any unwitting or unintentional remarks passed against a community, repeated articulations or even a one-time intense diatribe or even a forceful articulation can have cascading ramification. Against a person such an inquiry caused by words could still be sutured, but against a community, the injury multiplies. Therefore, the healing hand needs to be in tandem.”
The court also noted that the investigation was at a nascent stage and allegations extended beyond objectionable utterances to the alleged misuse of official position. “The possibility of the petitioner, thus, interference with investigation cannot be ruled out at this stage,” the order said.
Declining relief, Justice Goel held: “Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the societal impact of the alleged conduct and the requirement of a fair investigation, this court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”
