New Delhi: Stating that social media cannot be used to defame others, the Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant protection from arrest to a college professor who allegedly made objectionable remarks on Facebook against Union minister Smriti Irani.
The bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed that people must remain mindful of the language they use against others while criticising them, or cracking jokes on social media.
“You can’t defame women like this. You cannot use social media just to defame. What kind of language is being used? There is a language to criticise. There is a language to say jokes. You can’t say anything you like and then want to get away,” said the bench, denying anticipatory bail to Shaharyar Ali, head of the history department at SRK College in Uttar Pradesh’s Firozabad.
Firozabad Police booked Ali, head of History department at SRK College, in March for an allegedly obscene Facebook post against the Union women and child development minister. He was booked for offences under Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly promoting enmity between communities, apart from Section 67A of the Information Technology Act for publishing obscene material. The first information report was lodged against Ali on a complaint by a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader.
The Allahabad high court in May denied pre-arrest bail to Ali, saying that the accused was not eligible for the relief given the fact that he is a senior teacher and head of department in a college. It added that his social post was likely to promote ill will between different communities.
{{/usCountry}}The Allahabad high court in May denied pre-arrest bail to Ali, saying that the accused was not eligible for the relief given the fact that he is a senior teacher and head of department in a college. It added that his social post was likely to promote ill will between different communities.
{{/usCountry}}Challenging this order, Ali, through senior counsel Vikas Singh, claimed before the top court that his Facebook account was hacked, and that as soon as he came to know about the contentious post, he published an apology.
But the bench remained unimpressed. “What you are saying is an afterthought. You used the same account to post your apology but you say your account was hacked. This shows you are the one still using that account. Is there anything to show that your account had been hacked?” it asked Singh.
At this, the counsel said that though he had nothing to show about his account getting hacked, his conduct of posting the apology should be construed as being truthful.
The court, however, retorted: “We are not able to believe your hacking story. If your account was hacked, how can you access your own account? It can’t be called hacking. And if someone has used your account to post something, you will still be liable prima facie. You can prove your innocence before the trial court if you have not done anything.”
The court said that Ali cannot claim ignorance since he used the same account hours later. “And then you think that by saying sorry, all your acts can be washed off. It is not like that. We are not persuaded,” added the bench.
It dismissed Ali’s anticipatory bail plea, and gave him two weeks to surrender before the trial court in Firozabad.