HC quashes FIR against Save Aarey activist who shared Metro MD’s mobile number

The Bombay high court on Wednesday quashed an FIR against the executive director of Bengaluru-based online campaign organiser, who had in 2018 publicly shared the phone number of IAS officer Ashwini Bhide in a series of messages during the Save Aarey protests

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Wednesday quashed an FIR against the executive director of Bengaluru-based online campaign organiser, who had in 2018 publicly shared the phone number of IAS officer Ashwini Bhide in a series of messages during the Save Aarey protests. The digital advocacy portal, jhatkaa.org, was engaged by the citizens’ forum Aarey Conservation Group (ACG).

HC quashes FIR against Save Aarey activist who shared Metro MD’s mobile number

At the time, the Mumbai Metropolitan Rail Corporation (MMRCL) managing director, was at the receiving end of widespread outrage over the felling of thousands of trees in Aarey Colony for the upcoming Metro-III car shed.

The court ruled that there was “nothing offensive” in the messages and Avijit Michael of jhatkaa.org acted “on the basis of what he believed to be necessary for maintaining the health of the city of Mumbai.”

“The allegation is that certain messages were received on the official cell phone of Ashwini Bhide, due to which she felt offended and obstructed in the discharge of her duties. When she blocked the number from which she had received those messages...Bhide received some messages from a different mobile number. This is how, in the opinion of the complainant, Bhide was obstructed in discharge of her public functions. But Ashwini Bhide does not herself come forward and make any such allegations,” the court noted.

Sharply criticising the police for registering criminal offences at the behest of one Sanjay Dani, security advisor, MMRCL, the court said, “We find that, by no stretch of imagination, any offence punishable under Section 43(f) or 66 of the IT Act is made out in the present case.” At the time, the police had described Michael’s messages as a “denial-of-service cyber-attack”, which intends to shut down a computer or network, making it inaccessible to its intended users, by flooding it with traffic.

“These messages show at their face-value that the sender was the person who had intention to make efforts for preservation of the trees in the larger interest of society,” the court said, adding, “These messages do not contain any offensive material or any obscenities. Rather, they appear to have been sent in assertion of a democratic right... to put forth his viewpoint, to object, to protest, to persuade, to urge, and so on. If anybody is booked for criminal offences such as those as have been registered against the petitioner, it may amount to an invasion upon the rights of the citizens of this country.”

Stalin D, director of city-based NGO, Vanashakti, and a key figure in the ACG, said, “This is an important judgement for activists, especially those who are using the power of social media to achieve their goals. It will remind bureaucrats that they are public servants who need to listen when they are spoken to. They cannot intimidate well-meaning citizens with such tactics.”