LI Network
Published on: 08 August 2023 at 17:15 IST
The Bombay High Court has initiated a call for responses from both the Central and State governments concerning a plea aimed at establishing guidelines to counter the dissemination of disrespectful statements about deceased individuals in media outlets and on social media platforms.
This directive came about as a result of the case of Kumar Saptarshi & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors., where a division bench comprised of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor also announced the appointment of an amicus to assist the bench in addressing the broader implementation of Article 51A (b) and (e) of the Constitution.
These constitutional provisions pertain to the responsibility to uphold and follow the noble principles that were instrumental in our nation’s struggle for independence, as well as to promote unity and the spirit of common brotherhood among diverse segments of society.
The petitioners, represented by the Maharashtra Gandhi Smarak Nidhi (MGSN) and associated social activists, approached the court to express concerns over numerous recent incidents where deliberate statements were made against esteemed individuals who were no longer alive, including Mahatma Gandhi.
Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar contended that the petitioners were primarily focused on preventing instances where groups with differing ideologies tarnish each other’s heroes.
Anturkar asserted that national heroes should be allowed to rest undisturbed, urging the High Court to establish guidelines to address this issue, given the perceived legislative gap. He emphasized the importance of proactive measures rather than waiting for untoward incidents to occur.
However, the Court expressed uncertainty about its jurisdiction to intervene in this matter, referring to defamation laws and the legislative scope.
The Court questioned whether expanding the scope of these laws would cross into policy-making territory and whether it could interfere with executive actions.
The Maharashtra Advocate General, Dr. Birendra Saraf, argued that the field of defamation had already been comprehensively legislated upon. He noted that the legislative framework existed, and the state also needed to focus on logistics and infrastructure to manage such cases.
Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas, alongside Advocate Shardul Singh representing the Union government, suggested that if individuals were aggrieved by offensive statements about historically significant figures, they could pursue legal action under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that address obscenity.
The Court queried whether the existing IPC provisions align with the constitutional principles outlined in Article 51A (b) and (e), which emphasize the cherishing of constitutional ideals and the promotion of harmony.
The Court, ultimately, requested a comprehensive response from both the Central and State governments regarding the plea for the formulation of guidelines to address this matter. Additionally, the Court instructed the petitioners to remove Hindu activist Sambhaji Bhide as a party respondent in the case.