Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
South Mumbai MLA and BJP Mumbai President Mangal Prabhat Lodha have filed a petition in Bombay High Court challenging the validity of May 23 order of the Mumbai Police commissioner wherein they stated that the administrators of social media groups shall be personally liable for misinformation, and not only this but criminal action shall be initiated against them for spreading “incorrect, distorted information” and “inciting mistrust towards government”.
The order was passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which shall remain in force till June 8 and thereby prohibit citizens from spreading of misinformation on social medial platforms including WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, etc. which could cause panic, confusion, and mistrust against government administrators or officers. It was also asserted that stricter action shall be taken against those spreading disparaging messages and discrimination towards a particular community.
BJP Mumbai President Mangal Prabhat Lodha filed the petition along with advocate Hitesh Jain and sought directions to quash the said order and declare it to be vague, ambiguous, and unconstitutional. He emphasized that the order was subjective and passed with merely to showcase the state government’s inability to tackle the COVID-19 outbreak.
“The police order is so vague there are no guidelines for authorities on its implementation and is creating panic and an unjustified and harsh gagging effect on freedom of speech. It is arbitrary, an insidious form of censorship, and will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. To punish somebody who has a contrary view or is critical of the government or authorities on the grounds that it amounts to ‘inciting mistrust against the government’ is clearly arbitrary and in “stark violation of Article 19(1) (a) (freedom of speech), Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (right to life) of the Indian Constitution.”
The plea stated that citizens have the right to express their opinions and views on social media platforms. He claimed that since none of the restrictions imposed are properly defined, innocent persons can be taken advantage of. He further asserted that ‘public criticism’ is important for the working of government functionaries and ‘open dialogue’ is an important facet of democracy and therefore, he urged for interim stay on the order pending the hearing of the case.
86540
103860
630
114
59824