Supreme Court Considers Relief for Professor Over Social Media Posts
SC suggests Haryana consider relief for professor facing probe over social media posts.
Photo by Markus Winkler
The Supreme Court suggested that the Haryana government show “one-time magnanimity” to Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who is facing a criminal investigation for two contentious social media posts. The court proposed that the State government not grant sanction for his criminal prosecution. The trial judge would be unable to take cognizance of the case without the State government's sanction.
The court granted Haryana six weeks to get instructions from the State and revert to the court on the suggestion. The Chief Justice said Mr. Mahmudabad also had a duty to act responsibly.
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Executive, Judiciary
Link to Fundamental Rights (Article 19)
Potential for analytical questions on judicial review and separation of powers
Visual Insights
Supreme Court's Intervention in Social Media Post Case
Overview of the key aspects of the Supreme Court's consideration of relief for a professor facing criminal investigation over social media posts, linking it to fundamental rights and legal procedures.
SC Intervention: Social Media Post Case
- ●Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech
- ●Criminal Prosecution Sanction
- ●Judicial Review
- ●State Government's Role
More Information
Background
The concept of sanction for prosecution of public servants has deep roots in the legal history of India, predating even the Constitution. It stems from the need to protect public servants from frivolous or malicious prosecution, allowing them to discharge their duties without fear of harassment. The origin can be traced back to the British colonial era, with provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) designed to shield government officials from unwarranted legal action.
Over time, these provisions have been debated and amended, reflecting concerns about both protecting honest officials and ensuring accountability for corruption and abuse of power. The rationale is that public servants require this protection to make impartial decisions without the constant threat of legal repercussions for actions taken in good faith. This safeguard is intended to prevent politically motivated or vexatious litigation that could paralyze government functioning.
Latest Developments
Recent years have seen increased scrutiny of the sanction process, with courts often questioning the rationale behind granting or denying sanction. There's a growing demand for greater transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. The judiciary has emphasized that sanctioning authorities must apply their minds independently and not act mechanically on the recommendations of investigating agencies.
Future trends point towards a potential push for legislative reforms to streamline the sanction process, reduce delays, and ensure that it is not used as a tool to shield corrupt officials. The debate continues on balancing the need to protect honest public servants with the imperative of holding wrongdoers accountable. The Supreme Court's intervention in cases like the Ashoka University professor's highlights the ongoing tension and the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights while upholding the rule of law.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution of public servants in India: 1. Prior sanction is required only for offenses committed while the public servant is on active duty. 2. The objective is to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious litigation. 3. The power to grant or deny sanction rests solely with the investigating agency. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect because prior sanction may be required even after retirement for acts committed during service. Statement 3 is incorrect because the power to grant or deny sanction rests with the government, not the investigating agency. Statement 2 is correct as the objective is to protect public servants from frivolous litigation.
2. In the context of the Supreme Court's observation regarding the Ashoka University professor's social media posts, which of the following statements best describes the relationship between freedom of speech and reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution?
- A.Freedom of speech is absolute and cannot be subjected to any restrictions.
- B.Reasonable restrictions can be imposed only by a constitutional amendment.
- C.Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
- D.The State can impose any restriction on freedom of speech as long as it deems it necessary.
Show Answer
Answer: C
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech, but Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions on this freedom on specific grounds, including the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
3. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the Supreme Court's stance on the application of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 after the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India judgment?
- A.Section 66A remains valid and is frequently used to prosecute online speech.
- B.Section 66A was declared unconstitutional and struck down in its entirety.
- C.Section 66A was amended and now requires prior approval from a magistrate before any arrest.
- D.The Supreme Court has allowed states to enact their own versions of Section 66A.
Show Answer
Answer: B
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 unconstitutional and struck it down in its entirety for violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.