New Delhi: It wasn’t just the Supreme Court which added legal heft to freedom of speech and expression last week, the low-profile Tripura High Court too reinforced the right through two orders.
While the Supreme Court — in its ruling on the Kashmir internet shutdown — declared that “freedom of speech and expression… over the medium of internet” is constitutionally protected under Article 19, the Tripura High Court upheld the freedom, specifically in relation to social media.
On 9 January, the Tripura High Court asserted that government servants are entitled to hold and express their political beliefs, subject to the restrictions laid under Rule 5 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.
The next day, the court granted interim relief to a man against whom an FIR was filed over a Facebook post. In the post, the man had warned against the number advertised by the BJP for the missed-call campaign in support of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.
Also read: ‘Must be temporary’ — what Supreme Court judgment says on Kashmir internet shutdown
‘Govt servants also have right of free speech’
On 9 January, the Tripura High Court heard a petition filed by one Lipika Paul, who had been suspended from the state fisheries department and was facing proceedings, just days before her retirement. Paul had moved the court seeking quashing of the inquiry against her and the suspension order.
The complaint against Paul was that she had attended a “political programme” in December 2017 and wrote a “political” post on Facebook.
The court did not agree with the authorities, asserting that even though Paul was present at a political rally, it did not mean she “participated in it”.
It also examined Paul’s Facebook post, and said it “only expresses certain beliefs of the petitioner in general terms” and does not amount to canvassing for or against any political party.
“As a Government servant the petitioner is not devoid of her right of free speech, a fundamental right which can be curtailed only by a valid law. She was entitled to hold her own beliefs and express them in the manner she desired of course subject to not crossing the borders laid down in sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Conduct Rules,” the court then observed.
Rule 5(1) prohibits government servants from being members of or being associated with any political party or political activity.
Rule 5(4) prohibits government servants from canvassing, interfering with or taking part in an election to any legislature or local authority.
The court then set aside the suspension order and directed the government to release Paul her retiral benefits within two months.
Also read: India lost at least $1.3 billion to internet shutdowns in 2019
No arrest for FB post against BJP’s missed call campaign
In the second order, on 10 January, Chief Justice Akil Kureshi stayed the investigation and arrest of a person who was facing a case for putting a post on Facebook against the BJP’s missed call campaign.
The petitioner’s Facebook post said, “By mistake if you make a call in 8866288662, all of your data saved in the mobile would go to hackers. Be alert…. Be alert….”
According to the order, the FIR against him alleged that the post “instigates division of religious sentiments, creates an environment of misinformation and public nuisance and rumour mongering consequential to criminal conspiracy as a purpose”.
The FIR was initially registered under IPC Sections 153A (creating communal disharmony) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
After he was granted bail on these charges, another Section 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC was sought to be added, at which point the accused approached the high court demanding that the FIR be quashed.
Hearing the case, Justice Kureshi asked, “A serious question would be, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken on their face value, can it be stated that any of the above mentioned offences are made out?”
He then issued notice on the petition and stayed the investigation and arrest.
A ‘smaller high court’
Both Tripura High Court orders were passed by Chief Justice Akil Kureshi, whose appointment as the chief justice of a high court got embroiled in controversy and was allegedly stalled by the Modi government.
The Supreme Court collegium wanted Justice Kureshi to be appointed the chief justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court, but he was finally appointed chief justice of the “smaller” Tripura High Court.
However, the weight or the importance of the orders issued by Justice Kureshi will hold precedential value similar to any other high court of the country.
Although high courts are not legally compelled to follow the same line of reasoning as other high courts, the orders will hold ‘persuasive value’.
Also read: CAA internet shutdowns: Violation of basic rights or extension of law enforcement measures?