The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of hate speech allegations, the responsibility of the media, and the right to free speech under the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral). - The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.118 dated 02.04.2021, registered under Sections 295-A, 298, 153- A, 153-B, 505, 149, 124-A, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar.

The operative part of the order dated 28.04.2021, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is reproduced as under:-

“ Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 118 dated 02.04.2021, registered under Sections 295-A, 298, 153-A, 153-B, 505, 149, 124-A and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station City Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of Inspector Daljit Singh, it is stated that on 02.04.2021, he had seen a video clip, which went viral on social media, in which co-accused Nishant Sharma, President of Shiv Sena Hind along with petitioner Amit Ghai, Advocate, Youth National President and Arvind Gautham, President Punjab Wing and many other persons as named in FIR had convened a conference, wherein certain derogatory remarks were made regarding Nihang Sikhs that they are roaming with 4 or 3 or 2 feet long swords and are giving bad name to the attire of Nihang community. According to the complainant, this video amounts to hate speech, which is prepared to create communal disharmony and may lead to communal riots by insulting a particular section of the society and, therefore, it has posed a threat to the unity and integrity of the country.

Learned counsel further submits that aforesaid Nishant Sharma and Arvind Gautam have already surrendered/arrested in this case and the video clip, which was uploaded on social media, i.e. Facebook and You Tube by Ajit Singh Buland, who is the Chief Editor of Punjab Kesari TV, is in fact edited in a manner that it gives one sided version, whereas the conversation between the petitioner and the said Press Reporter was not intended to hurt the religious sentiments of any community.

Learned counsel has reproduced the entire conversation in the present petition to argue that during conversation, the petitioner has expressed; in so many words that he has faith in Sikh Religion and since childhood he has been following the preachings of Sikh Gurus and, therefore, by editing the speech of the petitioner, a wrong message has been given by the aforesaid Press Reporter to make a sensational news by adding his own contents. Learned counsel has also placed on record the original recording by way of a Pen Drive (Annexure P-2) to support his version.

Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of Section 153-A and 505 of the IPC would show that whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racials, language or regional groups or castes or communities, is liable for prosecution. Similar provisions are there in Section 295-A and 298 of the IPC.

Learned counsel further submits that the place where the petitioner has made the speech was situated in a Circuit House and the same was not accessible to the public and the recording was made by the said Press Reporter, therefore, he himself is a perpetuator of the offence, if any, under Sections 153-A, 153-B, 505, 295-A, 298 of the IPC.

Learned counsel further submits that in the absence uploading the said video clip on social media by the said Press Reporter, it was a private affair amongst the members, who were the followers of Shiv Sena Hind and have a fundamental right of freedom of speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel relies upon 2021 SCC Online 258, Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya, wherein the accused had uploaded a