Criminal justice equipment “relentlessly employed” in opposition to Mohammad Zubair: SC
8 min readBy PTI
NEW DELHI: Arrest just isn’t meant to be and should not be used as a “punitive tool” however the legal justice equipment was “relentlessly employed” in opposition to Alt News Co-founder Mohammad Zubair, the Supreme Court stated whereas granting him interim bail in reference to the FIRs lodged in opposition to him in Uttar Pradesh for alleged hate speech.
Gag orders have a “chilling effect” on the liberty of speech, the apex court docket stated whereas refusing to just accept the submission of the counsel representing Uttar Pradesh that Zubair be barred from tweeting when he’s on bail.
In its July 20 verdict, which was uploaded on the apex court docket web site on Monday night, a bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud stated although similar tweets allegedly gave rise to related offences within the FIRs, Zubair was subjected to a number of investigations throughout the nation.
“As evident from the facts narrated above, the machinery of criminal justice has been relentlessly employed against the petitioner (Zubair),” stated the bench, additionally comprising Justices Surya Kant and A S Bopanna.
“Resultantly, he is trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where the process has itself become the punishment,” the bench stated in 21-page judgement.
The apex court docket had delivered its verdict on Zubair’s plea searching for quashing of the FIRs lodged in Uttar Pradesh in opposition to him.
The high court docket had ordered the discharge of Zubair on interim bail in relation to the FIRs lodged in Uttar Pradesh in opposition to him for alleged hate speech and transferred the instances to the Special Cell of Delhi Police.
In its judgement, the apex court docket stated law enforcement officials are vested with the ability to arrest people at numerous phases of the legal justice course of, together with through the course of investigation, however this energy just isn’t “unbridled”.
“Arrest is not meant to be and must not be used as a punitive tool because it results in one of the gravest possible consequences emanating from criminal law: the loss of personal liberty. Individuals must not be punished solely on the basis of allegations, and without a fair trial,” the bench stated.
It stated the legal regulation and its processes ought to not be instrumentalised as a “tool of harassment”.
On the competition of UP’s counsel that Zubair have to be barred from tweeting when he’s on bail, the bench stated merely as a result of the complaints filed in opposition to him come up from posts that had been made by him on a social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order stopping him from tweeting can’t be made.
“A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion – an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold as an active participating citizen – would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would tantamount to a gag order against the petitioner,” it stated.
“Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech,” the bench noticed.
It famous that in accordance with Zubair, he’s a journalist who’s the co-founder of a reality checking web site and makes use of Twitter as a medium of communication to dispel false information and misinformation “in this age of morphed images, clickbait, and tailored videos”.
The apex court docket stated passing an order proscribing the petitioner from posting on social media would quantity to an unjustified violation of the liberty of speech and expression and the liberty to follow his occupation.
“The bail conditions imposed by the court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed,” the bench stated.
On the difficulty of energy to arrest, the apex court docket referred to its Arnesh Kumar verdict and stated when it’s exercised with out utility of thoughts and with out due regard to the regulation, it quantities to an abuse of energy.
“Section 41 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) as well as the safeguards in criminal law exist in recognition of the reality that any criminal proceeding almost inevitably involves the might of the state, with unlimited resources at its disposal, against a lone individual,” it stated.
The bench famous that Zubair was subjected to a number of investigations throughout the nation although similar tweets allegedly gave rise to related offences in numerous FIRs.
“Consequently, he would be required to hire multiple advocates across districts, file multiple applications for bail, travel to multiple districts spanning two states for the purposes of investigation, and defend himself before multiple courts, all with respect to substantially the same alleged cause of action. Resultantly, he is trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where the process has itself become the punishment,” it noticed.
The bench stated it additionally appeared that sure dormant FIRs from 2021 had been activated as sure new FIRs had been registered, thereby compounding the difficulties confronted by Zubair.
The high court docket additionally disbanded the particular investigation workforce (SIT) which was constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Police to probe the FIRs.
Zubair was arrested by the Delhi Police on June 27 for allegedly hurting non secular sentiments by one in all his tweets.
Multiple FIRs had been lodged in opposition to him in UP — two in Hathras and one every in Sitapur, Lakhimpur Kheri, Muzaffarnagar, Ghaziabad, and at Chandauli police station for allegedly hurting non secular sentiments.
NEW DELHI: Arrest just isn’t meant to be and should not be used as a “punitive tool” however the legal justice equipment was “relentlessly employed” in opposition to Alt News Co-founder Mohammad Zubair, the Supreme Court stated whereas granting him interim bail in reference to the FIRs lodged in opposition to him in Uttar Pradesh for alleged hate speech.
Gag orders have a “chilling effect” on the liberty of speech, the apex court docket stated whereas refusing to just accept the submission of the counsel representing Uttar Pradesh that Zubair be barred from tweeting when he’s on bail.
In its July 20 verdict, which was uploaded on the apex court docket web site on Monday night, a bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud stated although similar tweets allegedly gave rise to related offences within the FIRs, Zubair was subjected to a number of investigations throughout the nation.
“As evident from the facts narrated above, the machinery of criminal justice has been relentlessly employed against the petitioner (Zubair),” stated the bench, additionally comprising Justices Surya Kant and A S Bopanna.
“Resultantly, he is trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where the process has itself become the punishment,” the bench stated in 21-page judgement.
The apex court docket had delivered its verdict on Zubair’s plea searching for quashing of the FIRs lodged in Uttar Pradesh in opposition to him.
The high court docket had ordered the discharge of Zubair on interim bail in relation to the FIRs lodged in Uttar Pradesh in opposition to him for alleged hate speech and transferred the instances to the Special Cell of Delhi Police.
In its judgement, the apex court docket stated law enforcement officials are vested with the ability to arrest people at numerous phases of the legal justice course of, together with through the course of investigation, however this energy just isn’t “unbridled”.
“Arrest is not meant to be and must not be used as a punitive tool because it results in one of the gravest possible consequences emanating from criminal law: the loss of personal liberty. Individuals must not be punished solely on the basis of allegations, and without a fair trial,” the bench stated.
It stated the legal regulation and its processes ought to not be instrumentalised as a “tool of harassment”.
On the competition of UP’s counsel that Zubair have to be barred from tweeting when he’s on bail, the bench stated merely as a result of the complaints filed in opposition to him come up from posts that had been made by him on a social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order stopping him from tweeting can’t be made.
“A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion – an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold as an active participating citizen – would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would tantamount to a gag order against the petitioner,” it stated.
“Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech,” the bench noticed.
It famous that in accordance with Zubair, he’s a journalist who’s the co-founder of a reality checking web site and makes use of Twitter as a medium of communication to dispel false information and misinformation “in this age of morphed images, clickbait, and tailored videos”.
The apex court docket stated passing an order proscribing the petitioner from posting on social media would quantity to an unjustified violation of the liberty of speech and expression and the liberty to follow his occupation.
“The bail conditions imposed by the court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed,” the bench stated.
On the difficulty of energy to arrest, the apex court docket referred to its Arnesh Kumar verdict and stated when it’s exercised with out utility of thoughts and with out due regard to the regulation, it quantities to an abuse of energy.
“Section 41 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) as well as the safeguards in criminal law exist in recognition of the reality that any criminal proceeding almost inevitably involves the might of the state, with unlimited resources at its disposal, against a lone individual,” it stated.
The bench famous that Zubair was subjected to a number of investigations throughout the nation although similar tweets allegedly gave rise to related offences in numerous FIRs.
“Consequently, he would be required to hire multiple advocates across districts, file multiple applications for bail, travel to multiple districts spanning two states for the purposes of investigation, and defend himself before multiple courts, all with respect to substantially the same alleged cause of action. Resultantly, he is trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where the process has itself become the punishment,” it noticed.
The bench stated it additionally appeared that sure dormant FIRs from 2021 had been activated as sure new FIRs had been registered, thereby compounding the difficulties confronted by Zubair.
The high court docket additionally disbanded the particular investigation workforce (SIT) which was constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Police to probe the FIRs.
Zubair was arrested by the Delhi Police on June 27 for allegedly hurting non secular sentiments by one in all his tweets.
Multiple FIRs had been lodged in opposition to him in UP — two in Hathras and one every in Sitapur, Lakhimpur Kheri, Muzaffarnagar, Ghaziabad, and at Chandauli police station for allegedly hurting non secular sentiments.
