Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has denied bail to the accused involved in disseminating false reports through the guise of internet memes and hate speech against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, presiding over the case, delivered a stern message to journalists and publishers, stating, "It is the duty of journalists and publishers to disseminate factual information to the public, empowering them to make informed decisions. However, it is entirely unacceptable for publishers to exploit their platform for personal gain, resorting to coercive tactics under the guise of publication".

The court expressed unequivocal disdain towards personal attacks and abusive language targeting individuals, particularly public figures like the Prime Minister and Chief Minister, stating that it “is reprehensible and antithetical to the principles of civil discourse.”

The court, in its scathing rebuke, condemned the exploitation of media platforms for personal enrichment, asserting that such behaviour not only compromises the integrity of journalism but also breaches the trust bestowed upon the media by the public. Justice Chauhan articulated, “Exploiting one's position in the media landscape to extract benefits or coerce individuals through threats tarnishes the integrity of journalism.”

The court also said, “Resorting to derogatory language and personal attacks serves no constructive purpose and only serves to inflame tensions and undermine the fabric of civil society.”

The case, registered under sections 386, 389, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Lalpur Police Station, Varanasi, brought to light the misuse of media platforms for personal gain and the propagation of divisive rhetoric.

The FIR alleges that the informant, serving as the Vice President of the Purvanchal Truck Owners Association, played a pivotal role in pursuing a case against R.S. Yadav, the A.R.T.O. of Chandauli, on behalf of the government. It is asserted that Maurya, the applicant, coerced the informant into abandoning the case against Yadav by offering a bribe of one crore rupees.

Additionally, Maurya purportedly demanded monthly payments from the informant, threatening to publish damaging articles in newspapers if his demands were not met. The accusations further claim that Maurya resorted to sending threatening messages and engaging in verbal abuse towards the informant. Moreover, he is accused of propagating hate speech against public figures, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, along with making derogatory remarks against religious figures.

The court condemned the use of personal attacks and derogatory language, asserting that such tactics fail to contribute constructively to meaningful dialogue or societal improvement. Instead, they were deemed detrimental, diminishing the quality of public discourse, fostering discord, and eroding trust in democratic institutions.

Distinguishing between legitimate dissent and abusive language is crucial in democratic discourse, the court said, “Constructive criticism entails thoughtful analysis, reasoned arguments, and a commitment to engaging with differing viewpoints respectfully".

Conversely, abusive language undermines civil discourse, “fosters division and animosity.” and it erodes trust in democratic processes  and threatens social cohesion, court said.

The court emphasising that, dissent is a cornerstone of civic engagement, allowing citizens to express concerns and hold leaders accountable, said, “Citizens have the right to express their grievances and concerns regarding governmental actions or policies, fostering a culture of transparency and public engagement. However, it is essential to underscore that the exercise of this right must be conducted with a sense of responsibility and decorum. Respect for the dignity of individuals, regardless of their position or status, is paramount in upholding the integrity of civil discourse".

Central to the court's ruling was the affirmation of secular principles as a cornerstone of India's democratic ethos. Justice Chauhan articulated that, “religious sentiments hold profound significance for millions of citizens, shaping their beliefs, practices, and cultural identities. In acknowledging the importance of these sentiments, it becomes evident that any act aimed at denigrating or insulting them constitutes a grave affront to the principles of tolerance and respect.”  The court stressed the separation of religion from the affairs of the State as essential for upholding democratic values.

In its concluding remarks, the court emphasised the critical responsibility held by publishers and journalists and said, “When journalists abuse their authority for coercive purposes, they not only undermine the principles of transparency and accountability but also corrode the foundation of trust upon which democratic governance relies.”

In light of the allegations against the accused, which encompass the exploitation of media for extortion, dissemination of derogatory remarks targeting public figures, and indifference towards religious sensitivities, the court saw no justification for granting bail. Consequently, the bail plea was summarily rejected.

Interestingly, Amit Maurya faces two other such cases as well including one for making objectionable remarks against goddess Durga. In response to his remarks, he was assaulted by locals in Varanasi in October of the preceding year and was jailed following a complaint by residents. Adding to Maurya's existing legal troubles involving the IT Act and extortion charges in the present case, filed in 2019.

Case Title: Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh vs State of UP