New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a criminal case registered against Patricia Mukhim, editor of Shillong Times, in connection with her post on Facebook last year in July where she had decried the violence against non-tribals in Meghalaya.
The court said that what Mukhim wrote “cannot. by any stretch of imagination be considered ‘hate speech'” and that the charge that she meant to “incite communal tension and might instigate a communal conflict in the entire State is only a figment of imagination.”
Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Ravindra Bhat heard Mukhim’s plea after the Meghalaya high court in November last year had dismissed her petition.
On July 3, 2020, Mukhim on her Facebook had written: “The attackers, allegedly tribal boys with masks on…should be immediately booked. This continued attack on non-tribals in Meghalaya whose ancestors have lived here for decades, some having come here since the British period is reprehensible to say the least.”
“Don’t they have their eyes and ears to the ground? Don’t they know the criminal elements in their jurisdiction? Should they not lead the charge and identify those murderous elements? This is the time to rise above community interests, caste and creed and call out for justice,” she had continued, questioning the “Dorbar (Council) Shnong” for not taking preventive action.
Lawsohtun headman Lurshai Shylla had alleged that Mukhim’s statement incited communal tension and might instigate conflict, and a first information report (FIR) was lodged. She was booked under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc), 500 (punishment for defamation) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code.
Also read: Meghalaya: Complaint Against Patricia Mukhim After Facebook Post on Violence Against Non-Tribals
Mukhim’s petition before the Supreme Court said that she is “facing persecution for speaking the truth and seeking enforcement of rule of law against perpetrators of hate crime, in the exercise of her fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India”.
Vrinda Grover, representing Mukhim, told the court that the intent of her Facebook post was to “appeal to impartial enforcement of the rule of law of rule of law; equal treatment before the law of all citizens; condemnation of targeted violence against members of a minority group; an end to impunity for violence and thereby ensure peace and harmony between communities and groups”.
The petition further said that offences under Section 500 and 505(c) of IPC, being non-cognisable, cannot be investigated and prosecuted vide registration of an FIR in view of the statutory bar against such prosecution.
In its strongly worded judgment, the Supreme Court said:
When Mukhim had moved the Meghalaya high court last year, it said her petition seeking FIR against her be quashed cannot be entertained as the investigation agency should be given a free hand to probe into the matter.
“In the event, the investigating agency is required to be given a free hand to investigate the matter and to come to its own conclusion in due process of law. Consequently, I find no merit in the instant petition for exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC. This petition is accordingly hereby rejected,” the Meghalaya high court had said on November 10.
Mukhim had hit out at the Lawsohtun village dorbar (council) on Facebook for failing to identify the “murderous elements” after five boys were attacked at a basketball court in July 2020.
Note: This story has been edited to add extracts from the Supreme Court’s order