In a major relief to Union minister of state for home affairs Nityanand Roy, the Patna High Court has quashed the order of cognizance against him in a 2018 hate speech case, ruling that the allegations did not constitute any prima facie offence.
Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha passed the order, setting aside the cognizance order dated April 13, 2022, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria.
The order was uploaded on the high court website on Tuesday.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Narpatganj circle officer, alleging that Roy made provocative remarks against a Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) candidate in his speech during an election campaign meeting in Bihar’s Araria district on March 9, 2018, where he
Roy, who was then Bihar unit president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had allegedly said at the Narpatganj High School meeting that if RJD candidate Md. Sarfaraz Alam won the election, Araria would become the base for ISIS, a terrorist group. Police subsequently registered the case under sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 125 (promoting enmity between classes during elections) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The magistrate later took cognizance under Section 153 IPC instead of 153A, based on the allegations.
During the hearing, Roy's counsel Naresh Dikshit argued that his client was falsely implicated due to political motives and that no illegal act was committed. He said Roy’s speech did not contain any religious or community references and did not incite hatred or violence, thus failing to meet the criteria for an offence under the mentioned sections. He said the ISIS was not connected with any religion, and no illegal act was committed.
Justice Jha observed that the written complaint nowhere disclosed that any hatred speech was given in the name of religion or caste. The court noted that ISIS was a militant organisation having no connection with any religion and found no harm to religious sentiments of any particular community.
The order said merely expressing apprehension about a militant outfit establishing base in a district cannot be considered malignant or wanton speech as required under Section 153 IPC.
“It appears from the written information that the petitioner alleged to express through his public speech that if the candidate of RJD namely, Md. Sarfaraz Alam, will win the election, it would amount to making “Araria†as a base of ISIS. The written information nowhere discloses that any hatred speech was given in the name of religion, caste etc. ISIS, no doubt, is a militant outfit having no connection with any religion. There is no harm to any religious sentiment to any particular community. Admittedly, no illegal act was done by the petitioner. Mere showing an apprehension that in case the candidate of a particular party will win the election may create the base of ISIS (a militant outfit) in Araria, district of Bihar, cannot be said that the speech was malignant in nature or was wantonly in terms of its dictionary meanings…,†the court said.
Taking note of the “factual and legal discussion and on the basis of materials available on recordâ€, it could be safely said that the written information, which was the basis of the case, prima-facie did not constitute any offence, the court said. “The impugned order of cognizance, which is under challenge, does not appear to speak as to suggest how a prima-facie case is made out under sections 153 of the IPC and 125 of the RP Act against the petitioner,†the court added.
