The Allahabad High Court in the case Dr. Shiv Sidharth @ Shiv Kumar Bharti vs. State Of U.P And Another observed and has stated that the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and the duties that it does confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered licence for every possible use of the language.
The bench headed by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan in the case observed and has refused to quash a Chargesheet which is being filed against one Dr Shiv Sidharth as it has been stated under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code and the section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 wherein the court accused him.
In the present case, the accused moved the High Court wherein it has been submitted by the counsel that he has falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 i.e., Akhand Pratap Singh, who belongs to Hindu Vahini, and that though he had received the message in question, but the same was not sent or was being forwarded by him.
It has also been submitted by AGA appearing for the State that in the case during the investigation, the two mobile phones have been recovered from the applicant and on examination of whats-app messages of the aforesaid, thus, the allegations made as it is levelled against the applicant have been found to be true as the same finds a place in the whats-app chat of the applicant.
Further, it has been contended before the court that perusal of the FIR as well as the statements as given by the witnesses, a cognizable offence is made out against the applicant-accused and that the offence as stated under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 is also being made out against him as such messages are found in the WhatsApp chat of the mobile recovered from the applicant.
However, the court in the case observed and has persued section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in order to note that the provision does not stipulate everything to be penalized and that it does not say any and every act would tantamount on order to insult or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens.
The court in the case observed that the internet and social media has become important tool through which individuals can exercise right to freedom of expression which is being provided by them but the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties and that the same does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered license for the every possible use of language.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the aforesaid message had been received by him in the WhatsApp chat and that he may be excused and forgiven for the fault, thus, which has been committed by him as it has been admitted by him that he in the case has received the message and sent the same to other groups.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
The counsel, Advocate Brijesh Kumar Prajapati appeared for the applicant.
The counsel, Government Advocate Sanjay Singh represented the Opposite party