Accused is not influential, her tweets about Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray, Aaditya Thackeray, did not incite anyone, claims her counsel

The counsel for Thane resident Sunaina Holey, who has been booked under section 505(2) and 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for posting abusive tweets against

The counsel for Thane resident Sunaina Holey, who has been booked under section 505(2) and 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for posting abusive tweets against chief minister (CM) Uddhav Thackeray and his son minister Aditya Thackeray, has submitted that as per a Supreme Court (SC) judgement, Holey is not an influential person and hence her tweets and comments should be disregarded. Her attorney said that her comments posted between July 25 and 28 on Twitter should not be treated like comments made by politicians and journalists that incite hatred among communities. Holey has applied for quashing of the first information report (FIR) against her by the Mumbai Police and cyber cell.

Sunaina Holey has been charged for posting abusive material about Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray (in pic) and his son, environment minister Aaditya Thackeray, on Twitter. (/HT Photo)

In his submissions to the division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice MS Karnik, advocate Dr Abhinav Chandrachud referred to the SC judgement of July 2020 in the Amish Devgan case, wherein it was observed that cognisance needed to be taken against controversial statements made by influential people. While referring to Devgan, the Apex court held that the statements made by him during a television programme were objectionable as they hurt the sentiments of a community.

Dr Chandrachud then referred to the other observations made by the SC bench, wherein it had laid down a principle with regards to application of section 153(A). He submitted that the principle clearly distinguished between statements and comments made by influential people and those made by the common man. He submitted that as Holey was neither a journalist nor a politician, she would fall in the latter category and hence, her comments against the CM and his son should be disregarded. He further submitted that the statements in no way created any law and order situation, and the entire premise of her booking was misconceived.

While responding to a query by the bench in an earlier hearing as to how foreign courts dealt with the issue, Dr Chandrachud, while referring to a judgement by the US Supreme Court in the Whitney versus the State of California, submitted that the court had made an observation which is a classic. “The court held that bad speech could be reformed by more speech and not by silencing it,” he said. He further cited sections of the judgement which differentiated between advocating and inciting.

Dr Chandrachud said that courts across the globe had upheld the right to freedom of speech and expression wherein the individual was advocating a thought but not inciting others. In the case of Holey, he submitted that she had only expressed her views but had not incited anyone against the CM and his son.

Due to paucity of time, the court adjourned the matter and posted it for hearing on Tuesday.