"State must never browbeat a political opinion": Supreme Court in plea against targetted attack on Opindia Journalists by State of West Bengal
The Supreme Court has observed that State force should never be used to browbeat a political opinion. Court said that India is a country which prides itself on its diversity, and there are bound to be different perceptions and opinions which would include political opinions. "That is very essence of a democracy," the bench said.
The Top court has made this eminent observation in a plea by OpIndia editor Nupur Sharma who had moved the Supreme Court in June 2020 after the West Bengal Police had registered cases against them for offences under Section 153A (promoting enmity between religious groups), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh noted that all that the journalists had done was reproduce what the political class had stated against each other.
"We are however, not inclined to let go off the opportunity of saying something which is troubling the society and the Court. It is undoubtedly the debasement in the dialogue which is taking place which needs introspection from the political class across the country," the court said.
"We hasten to add that this does not take away the responsibility of the journalists in how they report the matters, more so in a “twitter age”," the Court added
All FIR's were stayed against the journalists by the Top Court earlier.
The plea by the Opindia Journalists had stated that the story carried by their platform was already in the public domain and various portals had carried the news, it was only them who were targeted.
The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court was filed stating that the organisation and its journalists, including its editor, Nupur Sharma were being persistently hounded and victimised by the State of West Bengal.
Appearing for the State of West Bengal, Siddharth Dave, Senior Advocate submitted before Top Court yesterday that the FIR forming part of the petition and the application in this regard shall stand withdrawn and maybe quashed by the court.
The court on hearing his submission noted that they were however not inclined to let go of the opportunity to speak of something which is troubling both society and court. The court noted that in a country such as India which prides itself of diversity there are bound to be different political opinions, and such opinions are the essence of democracy.
The court further noted that the only issue is the manner in which such dissents are being conveyed. The court noted that difference in perception can be expressed in better language and untoward words should never be used by the journalists. The court empathised with the journalists suffering the consequences of what is in public domain.
The court had further appreciated the stand taken by the State of West Bengal. The court further appreciated the very constructive role played by Siddharth Dave for bringing this matter to an end.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and advocate Ravi Sharma appeared for Sharma and Bharti.