gistrate,warranting Kanojia’sarrest.
Whenthepolicerealised that
Section 66 wasinapplicablein this
case,theyinvokedSection67 of the
IT Act,whichdealswithpublishing
or transmittingobscene materialin
electronicformandSection 505 of
theIPC,whichwerenotmentioned
in the FIR.
Specifically, Section67 seeksto
punishanyonewhotransmits elec-
tronically anymaterial thatis lascivi-
ous or appeals to the prurient
interestor if its effectis suchas to
tendto depraveandcorrupt persons
whoare likelyto read,see or hearthe
mattercontained or embodied in it.
Thepunishmentforfirst conviction
underthis provisionis imprison-
mentfor a term, whichmayextend to
five years,andwithfine up to Rs.10
lakh.In theeventof secondor sub-
sequentconviction, themaximum
punishmentthatmaybe imposedis
sevenyearsimprisonmentandafine
of Rs.10lakh.Clearly, a merestate-
mentabouttheprivatelifeof the
ChiefMinistercannotbe termed as
obscene.
Section 505 hasspecific provi-
sions,whichwerenot satisfied in this
case.It willkickin onlywhenthe
allegedoffenderhasan intentto
causefearor alarmto thepublic,
whereby anyperson may be induced
to commitan offenceagainstthe
stateor againstpublictranquillity.A
statement abouttheprivatelifeof
the ChiefMinistercannotbe expec-
ted to leadto public disorder.
Arrestin suchcases,the Supreme
Courthasheldon several occasions,
canbe madeonlyafterthepolice
recordsexceptional reasonsin writ-
ing,to justifyproperinvestigationof
the offence,for example, among
otherpossible reasons. Sincethe ar-
restof a person curtailshisor her
freedom, humiliates andstigmatises
him/her forever,the SupremeCourt
hasheldthata policeofficershould
not arresta personwithout a reason-
ablesatisfaction,aftersomeinvestig-
ationas to thegenuinenessof the
allegation.
ThefactthattheState govern-
mentwantedto usetheprocessas
thepunishment in theKanojia case
becameclearwhentheAdditional
Solicitor General,VikramjitBaner-
jee,representingtheUttarPradesh
government, questioned the Su-
premeCourt’sjurisdictionto inter-
vene, when the aggrieved party
shouldhaveapproached theHigh
Courtfirst.Kanojia’swife,Jagisha
Arora,filed a habeascorpuspetition
in theSupremeCourtunderArticle
32 of the Constitution.
Althoughthe benchhas disposed
of herpetition, following the release
order,thequestionof ensuring ac-countability for applying laws
withoutapplicationof mindagainst
mediapersons andothersfortheir
socialmediapostsremains.
A scrapdealer,PeerMohammad,
wasarrested in Gorakhpurin Uttar
Pradeshon June10 for making a fake
“wedding card”of Chief Minister
YogiAdityanathon socialmedia.An-
otherpersonwasreportedly taken
intocustody for makingindecent re-
marksagainstthe ChiefMinisteron
socialmedia.
TheUttarPradeshPolice’s arbit-
raryaction againstfourmediaper-
sonscoincides witha similar action
(registration of FIR) by the
Karnatakapolice againsttheeditor
of a Kannadanewspaperfor publish-
inga newsarticleallegingconflict
withinthefamilyof Chief Minister
H.D.Kumaraswamy.
TheFIR has beenfiledagainst
theeditor-in-chiefofVishwavani,
VishweshwarBhat,for publishing an
article on Kumaraswamy’s son,
NikhilKumaraswamy,wholostto
Sumalatha Ambareesh, an inde-
pendentcandidate,in MandyaLok
Sabha constituency in the recent
generalelection.Thesilencemain-
tainedby Congress presidentRahul
Gandhion the KarnatakaFIR, while
he criticised the arrests madein Ut-
tar Pradesh,is seenin politicalcircles
as double standards. $JAGISHAARORA,wife of PrashantKanojia, takespart in a protestorganisedby mediapersonsin New Delhi on June 10.
ANUSHREEFADNAVIS/REUTERS