SC relieves Twitter user over Tripura police allegations

[ad_1]

The Supreme Court on Monday banned Tripura police from taking action on its Twitter notice asking the latter to delete certain tweets from petitioner Samiullah Shabbir Khan regarding community violence that erupted in the state last year .

A division bench of Judge DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna granted this interim measure to Khan who claims to be a socially conscious student himself.

The police notice issued on November 22 of last year, under Article 91 (Summons to produce a document or other things) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to Twitter also required him to provide details like browsing log, emails, IP address and mobile. number linked to the petitioner’s Twitter account.

On October 26, a protest rally was organized by Viswa Hindu Parisad in the Panisagar subdivision, North Tripura district. The protest rally was organized against the attack on the pandals of Durga Puja and Hindu temples in Bangladesh. During the protest march, intercommunal clashes erupted. There have been allegations and counter-allegations even as several FIRs have been filed in this case.

Khan was briefed by Twitter on December 3 as part of his policy that Tripura police had information regarding his account in addition to deleting his “objectionable” tweets. His account is one of several accounts that have been flagged by the Tripura police as having published distorted and objectionable information regarding community violence. Khan had posted tweets indicating that anti-Muslim violence was taking place in Tripura and that up to 12 mosques had been vandalized.

Khan claimed the police were conducting a traveling investigation and his tweets were constitutionally protected under section 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. In his plea, he argues that restrictions on freedom of expression are only allowed if they pose an imminent threat to public order. This investigation is being carried out in a case filed by the police under Sections 153A, 153B, 469, 471, 503, 504, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 13 of the Assembly Prevention Act illegal (UAPA).

“For speech to be an exception to constitutional protections, it must act as a ‘spark in a powder keg’, so that public disorder is immediate and imminent. The vague and unfounded references to “potential for exacerbation of community tensions” as a result of journalistic reporting of targeted violence are not enough to deprive the discourse of its constitutional protection, “says Khan.

Khan points out that the current narrative reverses the source of the threat and violence, from the actual participants to those who pointed out, criticized and questioned it, and it has a chilling effect on democratic accountability.

Khan isn’t the only one being investigated for social media posts. In fact, this is the fourth litigation before the Supreme Court resulting from community violence in Tripura. Previously, the Supreme Court notified Tripura police of a petition filed by three people, accused by state police under strict UAPA, seeking to quash an FIR against them for their tweets and comments on the media. reports on the recent violence in Tripura targeting minorities. A special bench of Indian Chief Justice (CJI) NV Ramana and Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant had ordered that no coercive action be taken against the defendants in the meantime. In another case, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) calling for an independent and impartial investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into recent incidents of violence against the Muslim community in Tripura. .

On December 8 last year, the Supreme Court stayed all proceedings against HW News Network, its deputy editor Arti Ghargi and two journalists Samridhi Sakunia and Swarna Jha under two first information reports (FIR) filed. by Tripura Police for reporting on community violence that erupted in the state in October this year.

Lawyer Shahrukh Alam represented Khan.

[ad_2]