Mumbai: On May 19, YouTuber and political commentator Dhruv Rathee posted a 29-minute video titled ‘The Narendra Modi Files | A DICTATOR Mentality?’.
The video, like most of his work, went viral in no time and garnered over 15 million views. In this video, Rathee critically looks at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s governance over the past two decades – first, as the chief minister of Gujarat and then as the country’s prime minister. He terms his approach “dictatorial”.
While the video continues to be widely shared across social media platforms, the Vasai-based Manikpur police have considered sharing of this video a “crime”.
The police have registered an FIR against Adesh Bansode, a city-based lawyer and also a state secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) for sharing the video on a WhatsApp group of lawyers. Bansode shared the video on May 20, the day when the fifth phase of the ongoing general election was scheduled. Residents of constituencies in Mumbai and other suburban areas were voting on that day. With the video, Bansode shared a short message in Marathi that read, “Do watch this video before you set out to vote.”
The message had “nothing provocative in it,” Bansode tells The Wire. “Nor did I ask anyone to vote for a particular party,” he adds.
The video, however, irked a few among the 50 members of the ‘Bar Association of Vasai’ WhatsApp group.
An ‘untenable’ FIR
A first information report was subsequently registered and Bansode was booked under section Section 188, 171 (F), 171 (G) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA). Section 188 applies when a person tends to or causes danger to human life with his disobedience; Section 171 (F) defines punishment for undue influence or personation at an election and Section 171 (G) is applied when a person makes false statement in connection with an election. Similarly, section 123 (4) of the RPA can be applied when a person, who is either a candidate or an agent of a candidate and puts out a statement which is false.
Bansode agrees that he is not just the state secretary of the CPI (M-L) party, but also the polling agent of the party’s candidate from Palghar constituency. “But my sharing of that video was in no way violating any law,” he says.
Since the FIR, Bansode had to secure bail against a surety of Rs 10,000. Bansode, who is a practicing lawyer, says that not just the sections applied in the FIR but the very basis of this FIR is “untenable”. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) very clearly lays down a procedure, he says. “The police should have first approached a magistrate and only on the court’s order could they have booked me under these sections,” he points out.
But after he secured bail, police sent a notice to Bansode asking him to hand over his phone for investigation. Bansode, meanwhile, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, asking under what law sharing a message on social media is prohibited.
In the RTI response, he shares, he learnt that police took action against him citing the fact that cops had prohibited sending out bulk messages. “But WhatsApp doesn’t allow bulk messaging. I didn’t indulge in any kind of propaganda on WhatsApp or any other platform. It was one simple message on the group and I had not endorsed any candidate,” he reiterates.
A month-old dispute
Bansode says the complainant, Jayant Walinjkar, also an advocate, might have had motivations to approach the police because of a month-old dispute. The dispute has its roots in the fact that the four bar associations in Vasai had planned to celebrate Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Jotiba Phule and Chhatrapati Shivaji’s birth anniversaries.
“Walinjkar got into a fight with few women lawyers when they approached the bar association for some furniture for the celebrations. It was totally uncalled for and when the situation went out of control, I, along with a few others, complained against Walinjkar. This particular FIR against me could be an outcome of that anger,” Bansode says.
Bansode adds that the FIR against him is also symptomatic of what is happening to public and private institutions across the country. “A simple birth anniversary celebration (of national figures) has become impossible. You seek permission and it is denied. The administration will come up with hundred different excuses and deny you a permission,” he claims.
A surprisingly quick police
Vasai falls under the Mira-Bhayander Vasai-Virar (MBVV) Commissionerate. The police’s promptness to act on Walinjkar’s complaint needs to be understood in the region’s socio-political context as well. In January, when riots broke out in the Mira Road area and many youths belonging to Muslim community were targeted and their properties were destroyed, the police had dragged its feet, refusing to file an FIR in many cases. Many victims of the violence had accused the police of showing communal bias in handling their complaints.
The commissioner of police Madhukar Pandey had, in fact, had allowed Nitish Rane – a sitting MLA and among the primary accused who is alleged to have provoked the riots – to hold a press conference in his office.
Today, June 1, several lawyers and activists came together under a banner ‘Sarva Paksha Sangharsh Samiti,’ which loosely translates to ‘all party struggle committee’ and protested against the police’s action against Bansode.
