Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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