New Delhi: The Karnataka high court on Wednesday, July 19, stayed the first information report (FIR) registered against BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya for a tweet on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi via an interim order.
The case was registered against Malviya under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including promoting enmity between two groups and criminal conspiracy. According to LiveLaw, the single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the tweet in question was against an individual and therefore cannot be regarded as against a group, class or as promoting enmity between groups or classes to attract punishment under Section 153A of the IPC.
The tweet for which the case against Malviya was registered had an animated video which showed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi as part of a “break India” alliance. The FIR was filed based on a complaint filed by Congress leaders Priyank Kharge and Ramesh Babu.
The complaint stated that Malviya’s actions were intended to “incite animosity and hatred within society”.
BJP MP Tejasvi Surya, who was appearing for Malviya, argued that the FIR was “politically motivated” and raised the possibility of imminent arrest. He also argued that the tweet could not be described as promoting enmity.
The judge said:
“The tweet that is alleged or which has become the fulcrum of the present allegation is against an individual. If the tweet is against an individual, how it has created disharmony or enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth or residence is not divulged in the complaint.”
“The complaint though narrates that it amounts to certain extremism of certain religion that is not the intention of the tweet. The contention is that it is against the leader of the Indian National Congress. What enmity the tweet has promoted between different groups is not divulged in the complaint.”
The high court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Patricia Mukhim, which interpreted the scope of Section 153A IPC. It said allowing further investigation against Malviya, if permitted, “would become an abuse of process of law”.
The court stayed the investigation until the next hearing.
