Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

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

Similar News