Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Every Offensive Statement Does Not Qualify as Defamation or Incitement: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against E-Newspaper Director

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, has quashed FIR No. 31 of 2020 against Shiv Prasad Semwal, the director of the e-newspaper 'Parvatjan'. The FIR was lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 153A, 500, 501, 504, 34, and 120B, pertaining to defamation and incitement. The judgment, delivered by Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, firmly upheld the principle of freedom of speech and expression.

The apex court scrutinized the legality of the FIR and evaluated if the published content constituted a cognizable offence. The court emphasized the importance of freedom of speech, noting that not every offensive statement can be construed as defamation or incitement to disharmony under the IPC.

The case revolved around an article published in 'Parvatjan', which allegedly depicted that the land for a foundation stone laying ceremony was unlawfully occupied. The complainant alleged this publication defamed him and incited breach of peace. Semwal, in his defense, contended that the article was based on a Facebook post and did not warrant prosecution.

The court meticulously examined whether the article's contents amounted to a cognizable offence. Justice Mehta observed, "In order to constitute the offence [Section 153A IPC], the prosecution must come out with a case that the words ‘spoken’ or ‘written’...created enmity or bad blood between different groups...the foundational facts essential to constitute the offence under Section 153A IPC are totally lacking from the allegations as set out in the FIR."

Regarding the application of Section 504 IPC, the court found that the article did not provoke anyone to break public peace. The court also cited the landmark judgment in 'State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.' to reinforce the decision to quash the FIR.

Decision: The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the FIR, stating that the allegations did not disclose necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting freedom of speech while balancing it against defamation laws.

Date of Decision: March 19, 2024

Shiv Prasad Semwal vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others

Latest Legal News