IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Niral R. Mehta, J.
Amit Hiteshbhai Pandya - Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Criminal Application No. 7851 of 2022
Decided On : 20-10-2022
JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 226(2) - Information Technology Act, 2008 - Sections 295A, 153, 153A, 505(2), 120B of the Indian Penal Code - The court dismissed the petition on the ground of jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, holding that it cannot issue a writ of prohibition to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, engaged in social activities and managing a community page on Facebook, challenged the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, which directed to block certain Facebook pages due to allegations of promoting enmity and ill-will between religious groups.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition on the ground of jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, holding that it cannot issue a writ of prohibition to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of prohibition to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it cannot have jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, challenging, inter alia, the order dated 4th May 2022 passed in CRM/1306/2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab; by which the learned J.M.F.C, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab has directed to block the following links with immediate effect:
I. https://www.facebook.com/AdikhamGujarat/
II. https://www.facebook.com/bharatvikas
III. https://www.facebook.com/ForBJPGujarat
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition can be narrated as under:
[2.1] The petitioner claims himself to be engaged in social activities and associated with (i) Nation First Foundation as Trustee, Gandhinagar, (ii) Niharika Art Foundation – Trustee, Vadodara, (iii) Udgam Charitable Trust – Consultant, (iv) Indian Lions – Member (v) Swarveena – Coordinators, (vi) Bhartiya Janta Party , Gujarat – Incharge, Social Media North Zone.
[2.2] Pursuant to his social activities, the petitioner has created and managing community page on facebook namely “Adikham Gujarat”, wherein various posts are being pasted about Gujarat’s governance, measures and achievements of the Central Government of India and State Government of Gujarat as well as about Gujarat politics. The said page claims to have 4,41,000 followers and daily on an average 7 – 9 videos and posts were being put on the said page “Adikham Gujarat” before it has been blocked.
[2.3] That, one F.I.R. came to be lodged with Mulepur Police Station situated within the District : Fatehgarh Sahib at Punjab being C.R. No.I- 37 of 2022 on 30th April 2022 against the unknown person for the offence punishable under Sections 295A, 153, 153A, 505(2), 120B of the Indian Penal Code by one Chaman Mohanlal Qureshi in his capacity of a member of the Aam Aadmi Party. In the said F.I.R., it is alleged that the creators of page viz. (I) https://www.facebook.com/AdikhamGujarat/, (II) https://www.facebook.com/bharatvikas, and (III) https:// www.facebook.com/ForBJPGujarat are promoting a feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between the different religious groups and are instigating people in order to target the population belonging to a caste.
[2.4] Pursuant to the said F.I.R., for the purpose of effective investigation, the SHO Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab has approached the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab by way of an application No.1306 of 2022 under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 with a prayer to block the said pages and directions for providing certain details.
[2.5] Pursuant to the said application, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, on the same day i.e. on 4th May 2022, directed to block all the pages including the page created by the present petitioner with immediate effect and till further orders and further directed the facebook to provide certain information to the Investigating Agency for the purpose of effective and proper investigation.
3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, approached this Court by way of this Special Criminal Application invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs:
“14(A)This Honourable Court may be pleased to exercise the powers under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring and holding that the impugned order at Annexure A dated 04.05.2022 passed in CRM/1306/2022 and/or CRM 200/2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib at Punjab, is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction and without powers and against the statutory provisions of Section 69A of the IT Act, 2008 as well as the rules made thereunder and thereby, be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order, and also be pleased to further direct to the respondent to forthwith open/unb
Cement Workers Mandal vs. Global Cements Ltd (HMP Cements Ltd) and others
M/s. East India Commercial Company Ltd. Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra
AI
Point of Law : Territorial jurisdiction - Prior to Constitutional (Fifteenth Amendment Act, 1963, concept of cause of action was alien for adjudication of disputes by High Court under Article 226 of ....
The jurisdiction to challenge actions of the Jaipur Development Authority under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution, not Article 226.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'cause of action' and the concept of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the notice....
Judicial orders in criminal cases are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, requiring challenges to follow remedies under Article 227, as clarified by statutory provisions.
High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 is contingent upon the presence of a cause of action within its territorial limits, as clarified by recent rulings.
The court emphasized the necessity of providing a hearing before passing orders affecting parties' rights, reinforcing the supervisory nature of Article 227 over judicial decisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.