The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of academician Madhu Purnima Kishwar in a case registered against her for allegedly retweeting a video clip on social media.
The bench of Justice Aman Chaudhary on Friday observed that there was a distinction between “constructive criticism and tweeting/trolling” and said that since Kishwar had a large following on social media, the repercussions could be huge.The court, in its order, observed this was not a “solitary incident” and that Kishwar had been posting on “sensitive” matters.
The high court noted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and several aspects are yet to be brought out and dismissed Kishwar’s plea, seeking prearrest bail in the matter.Kishwar had been booked on charges of defamation, promoting enmity and other offences by Chandigarh Police following a complaint alleging circulation of forged and misleading content on social media.
Kishwar, through her counsels Kapil Sibal and Sartaj Singh Narula, contended that the only allegation against her was that she had retweeted a 14-second video clip on social media platform X, which was innocuous and without any illintent.The offence of forgery is not made out against her, as she is not the one who had prepared the video, according to the plea.
She is a seasoned academician, who has authored many books and has no criminal antecedents, her counsels argued.They argued that her previous posts cannot be taken into consideration for this case as no action has been taken against her regarding those posts. She has no control over the comments others make on what she uploads/posts, thus cannot be held responsible for acts of others, the counsels submitted.
The counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Chandigarh contended that it would be wrong to say it was a mere retweet by Kishwar.The video in question was first uploaded by another person on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. Then Kishwar downloaded the video and uploaded it on her X, where she has a huge following, with 18 lakh persons, the counsel submitted.
“The same (video) got widely circulated and received 1,74,000 views, which would make her gain further popularity in such issues. Thus she not only aided in spreading misinformation, but also defamed the image of the head of the government,” the counsel submitted.
The court while referring to a status report in the matter, observed that even though the first notice was duly served to the petitioner at her Delhi address on April 20, she failed to appear before the investigating agency.This continued for the notices dated April 26 and May 5, which by itself shows her conduct of non-cooperating with the investigating agency, the court observed.
Follow us
