MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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