Amish Devgan v. Union Of India & Ors., (2020) SCC ONLINE SC 994
Khushboo Bharti
It has been written by Khushboo Bharti, a second-year law student of the Institute of Law, Jiwaji University, Gwalior (M.P.)
Petitioner: Amish Devgan
Respondents: Union of India & Others
Bench description: Sanjiv Khanna, A.M. Khanwilkar
Date of judgement: 7th December, 2020
Facts of the case: The case of Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020), concerns the petitioner Amish Devgan who was a popular TV journalist and anchor who was accused of using humiliating language and reckless statement against a well-known Muslim saint known as Hazrat Moinuddin Chisti during a debate program on the show named ‘AAR-PAAR’ on June 15, 2020, while being concerned of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The petitioner utter some words which are few lines such as aakrantak Chisti aaya…, lootera aya…, usne dharam badle… Again, these lines can be translated in English as Terrorist and When Robber Chisti arrived, he altered the beliefs of many people. This paper established that the aforesaid lines offended the Muslims’ emotional and spiritual self-esteem and disunited the nation. After the show telecast, the petitioner was arrested, beaten up by the OB/GP and BR Police, and then abused on social media along with many FIRs filed against such a criminal offence by the petitioner. During the course of the criminal case filed by the petitioner on the 17th of June 2020, the petitioner recorded an apology in the custody of the Court in which he stated that it was unknown to him that the name which he used was that of Saint Chisti and that his intention was not to cause simplify and feelings of resentment among any community. Thereafter, a writ petition was moved to the Supreme Court on June 20, 2020, through the petitioner who sought the quashing of all the FIRs against him under provisions of judicial interference as envisaged under Section 482 of the CrPC. The petition was amended with Prayer for issuance of the writ of certiorari and mandamus to prevent any threats or abuse that may be carried out after show telecast all the seven FIRs merged with the first FIR having No. 78 before the Rajasthan Police Station and permanent protection for the family of the petitioner was sought.
Issues: The following questions were formulated for the consideration before the Supreme Court:
1.Do the petitioner's comments have a disparaging and insulting tone that might promote disturbance and discontent in the community?
2. Whether these words impoverish the dignity and pride of the nation?
3.That whether the petition should be dismissed under Article 32 in an insolent manner?
4. The maintainability of multiple FIRs registered against the petitioner?
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The appellant pointed out that where there are more than one FIR for the same offence shall violate the fundamental right of the appellant to express him or herself freely as provided under Article 19 of the constitution of India.
1.The appellant’s intention was not to promote or incite enmity and feeling of animosity towards any other group of persons on grounds of religion or to disturb through messages on religious grounds the members of the Muslim community or to outraged their religious feelings and all the words used by the appellant were said inadvertently due to which the same does not fall under the ambit of Sections 153A, 295A and 505 2 IPC and Section 66.
2. He submitted that minor scuffle in which no one was intentionally given a serious threat or intended to offend hence should come under the provisions of Section 95 of IPC, 1860.
3.The appellant in supporting his argument used cases namely Arnab Ranjan Goswami versus Union Of India (2020) and Balwant Singh and anr versus The State of Punjab 1975 before the court of law.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The explanations justifying the appellant’s actions were contested by the state of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Telangana, as well as Uttar Pradesh.
1.The respondents further opine that the petitioner is used to the act of offending as the same complaint was lodged by the petitioner in the past.
2.This was not a chance or a slip when using the word Chisti three times in the debate.
3.The apology by the petitioner was recorded after the FIRs were filed against him for indecent behaviour and vulgar comments he made during the show.
4. Thus, Article 19 brought some restrictions and impositions that the petitioner did not pay attention to hat Today promoting hatred and outraging religious feelings among Hindus and Muslims.
Rationale: Among the most important constituents of the opinion that underlies the judgement, one could identify a profound consideration by the courts of the category of offences in the world containing hate speech and inciting religious and emotional passions among the public. The second is realizing the provisions of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and restrictions pertaining to it. The court uses the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan Vs Union of India (2014) wherein civil liberties recommend the passing of laws in the Parliament to check hate speech. Firstly, the court stated legal requirements in the respective countries such as the UK, USA, Germany, Canada and France. Analysis revealed that in all the countries of the world free speech and expression is only protected up to a certain extent and thus there is always a check on the freedoms of an individual and a group.
Following that, the court began assessing Indian case law in terms of legal measures aimed at criminalizing and repudiating people's views. It also indicated that more attention should be paid to preserving the relation between human right activists and the provision of basic rights, and free speech. These are mentioned in the cited Cases- Ramji Lal Modi vs The State Of U. P (1975) and Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (1978) but it did not turn out beneficial for the present petitioner for his aim of quashing the fir against him.
Speaking of specific categories, the court attempted to distinguish between speech that should be allowed based on the first amendment, and speech that may be prohibited as hate speech. While the former is the right which is granted to every person to either approve or disprove the remarks of the opposition whereas the latter covers words that are spoken in a hate speech against the particular group of people. The reason for the emergence of hate speech crime is to protect the identity and integrity of the nation as well as it’s stability.
The reason for the maintainability of the registered FIRs is to examine the legal procedures under which seven FIRs had been registered against the petitioner. The compliants under various FIRs were said to be claim but they all harmonized and disposed at the place of first FIR.
In addition, the court also rejected the petitioner’s argument to the assertion that he had only committed a trivial offense during the show carried out with due negligence. Also, it was highlighted that the nature of the offence would be apprehended and assessed by legal bodies and the court was incapable of understanding the reality of the crime at present.
Defects in law:
That means there has been an aspect of a failure in providing the equal protection of the law or not discriminating on the grounds of religion. This was the type of phrase that one would normally use when wondering how a member of one culture can insult the saints of another community.
Section 20(1) of the constitution of the people’s republic of Bangladesh promises the right to speech and expression of each citizen without damaging the other party. The present case does not seem to have a balance between the protection of the fundamental rights and the relationship of these rights to life situations.
The most negligent cases that could not be ignored were the impious words spoken in due negligence about any revered saint which leads to the formulation of hate speech a formulation that endangered public safety.
None of these aspects was delineated to incriminate the acts of ‘hate speech’ prior to the delivery of the fatal and provocative words.
Inference: there is much to discuss that several of the reported cases which our Apex Court and other high courts have had a deleterious effect on the freedom of speech which interestingly forms part III of the Indian Constitution. Separating free speech and hate speech and coming to a logical conclusion is thearefa of the judiciary because court’s primary duty lies in the preservation of the rights guaranteed under the Indian constitution to the citizens. The existing laws are likewise ambiguous and vague on this topic, making it a gray area for quite some time. The answer to this rising challenge in democratic India can be worked out with collaborative efforts of the legislature and the judiciary to maintain the noble traditions of the Indian Constitution on one hand as well as to let the Indian individuals can behave freely without fear of facing serious consequences, which purported should be done rationally within the reasonableness.
References
1.https://www.supremecourtcases.com 23 November 2021,
Supreme Court Cases 'Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020)https://www.supremecourtcases.com/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-and
-others-5/Accessed 3 August 2024
2. https://lawfoyer.in Lawfoyer,'Amish Devgan v. Union of India ‘https://lawfoyer.in/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-2/Accessed 3 August 2024
3. https://www.lawctopus.com Lawctopus 'Supreme Court PIL Hate speech cases’https://www.lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/legal-news-clat-supreme-court-pil-hate-speech-cases/accessed 3 August 2024
4. https://lawfoyer.in/Lawfoyer,'Amish Devgan v. Union of India ‘https://lawfoyer.in/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-2/Accessed 3 August 2024
5. https://lawfoyer.in/amishLawfoyer,'Amish Devgan v. Union of India ‘https://lawfoyer.in/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-2/Accessed 3 August 2024
https://lawfoyer.in/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-2/ accessed 28/07/2024
7. https://www.supremecourtcases.com
Supreme Court Cases 'Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020)https://www.supremecourtcases.com/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-and-others-5/Accessed 3 August 2024
Blog ipleaders ,'Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) :A case that outraged Religious Grounds https://blog.ipleaders.in/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-2020-a-case-that-outraged-religious-grounds/
9. https://www.lawctopus.com
Lawctopus 'Supreme Court PIL Hate speech cases’https://www.lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/legal-news-clat-supreme-court-pil-hate-speech-cases/accessed 3 August 2024
Blog ipleaders ,'Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) :A case that outraged Religious Grounds https://blog.ipleaders.in/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-2020-a-case-that-outraged-religious-grounds/
Accessed 3 august 2024
Blog ipleaders ,'Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) :A case that outraged Religious Grounds https://blog.ipleaders.in/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-2020-a-case-that-outraged-religious-grounds/
Supreme Court Cases 'Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) ,23 November 2021https://www.supremecourtcases.com/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-and-others-5/Accessed 3 August 2024
Lawfoyer,'Amish Devgan v. Union of India ,10 July 2022‘https://lawfoyer.in/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-2/Accessed 3 August 2024
Indraprastha law Review’ Hate speech cases in India’https://indraprasthalawreview.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GGSIPU_USLLS_ILR_2021_V2-I1-05-Arpita_Shukla-Avani_Malhotra.pdf accessed on 3 august 2024
Lawctopus 'Supreme Court PIL Hate speech cases’https://www.lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/legal-news-clat-supreme-court-pil-hate-speech-cases/accessed 3 August 2024