Bombay HC asks petitioner to justify claim of actor Kangana Ranaut exceeding her constitutional right

The Bombay high court (HC) observed that actor Kangana Ranaut has fundamental rights under article 21 of the Constitution and had a right to express her views through

The Bombay high court (HC) observed that actor Kangana Ranaut has fundamental rights under article 21 of the Constitution and had a right to express her views through tweets. The court was responding to a case in which a Mumbai-based petitioner advocate sought suspension of the actor’s Twitter account to show that the reasonable restrictions on her freedom of speech as per Article 19(2) of the Constitution are violated by her allegedly offensive tweets.

An advocate is seeking suspension of Kangana Ranaut’s Twitter account. (Prodip Guha)

The state reiterated its stand that the writ petition was vague and the remedy lay elsewhere in the form of a public interest litigation (PIL) and hence sought dismissal of the petition. The court then sought to know from the petitioner the grounds on which it could exercise its powers in the case and posted the case for further hearing on January 7.

A division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice MS Karnik, while hearing the criminal writ plea by Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, was informed that the actor had not only hurt the Muslim community but had also caused him mental agony. “Free speech and hate speech are different. In my petition, there are multiple examples of how she has hurt many feelings. There are many cases filed in various courts against her. There is personal mental injury that I have suffered through her tweets,” submitted Deshmukh.

When asked to respond, additional public prosecutor JP Yagnik submitted, “This petition either needs to be converted into a PIL or else so many people will start coming to court stating that they are hurt. People will read newspapers and start coming to court. Constitutional right and constitutional remedy are different. This is a vague petition.” He sought dismissal of the petition.

The court last week had directed a petitioner lawyer to justify how his plea seeking suspension of Ranaut’s Twitter account could be treated as a writ plea and not a PIL as his claims were not personal but involved an entire community.

After hearing the submissions, the bench sought to know from Deshmukh how his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution had been violated. “Any individual can have this account. She also has the fundamental right to have an account and has a fundamental right to express her thoughts. So you have to show how your fundamental rights are breached? Unless the case comes under the reasonable restrictions, can we accede to your request? If you have to judge, what will you do?” observed justice Shinde.

Justice Shinde further said, “Word against word, how can we go into this issue? We are not in a hurry to dismiss your petition. Take your time. We don’t want to discourage a young lawyer like you. Go through your points and make fresh arguments. On the next date, we will bring an end to this.”

The court then posted it for further hearing on January 7.