Madras High Court · 2025

Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023 O R D E R This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.337 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent policefor offences under Sections 153A, 505(1)b and 505(2) of IPC, as against the petitioner.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2023 at 11.30 hrs, one Kannagi, the Special Sub Inspector of Police of Tiruppur North Police Station gave a written complaint stating that a false news was posted in the Twitter page of "Dainik Bhaskar" in Hindi and its English translated form with the help of Google was "BIHARI LABOURS IN TAMIL NADU ARE BEING PUNISHED BY THE TALIBAN FOR SPEAKING HINDI. HINDI SPEAKING PEOPLE ARE NOW BEING KILLED IN THE DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF WAGES THE YOUTH OF JAMUI TOLD -12 LABOURERS WERE HANGED MORE THAN 15 WERE MURDERED". It contained the following four false news:- (i)Bihari Laboureres in Tamilnadu are being punished by Taliban for speaking Hindi.(ii) Hindi speaking people are now being killed in the dispute arising out of wages. (iii) 12 Labourers were hanged, and (iv) More than 15 were murdered. 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 20233. As the said publication in the twitter was found apparently intending to cause fear and alarm to the migrants from Bihar working in Tamil Nadu including Tiruppur, whereby they might be induced to commit offences against the State and against the public tranquility. It was prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between the Biharis working as labourers in Tamil Nadu and Tamil population which was likely to disturb the public tranquility, a case was registered by Senthilmurugan, the Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No.337 of 2023 under Section 153-A and 505(1)(b) IPC,1860 against twitter page Dainik Bhaskar. 4. Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the News Editor of the Digital Division of Hindi Newspaper namely "Dainik Bhaskar". He would submit that the publication group had launched its debut edition in Hindi Daily on 13.08.1958 in Bhopal and it has a wide circulation throughout four States in North India. He would submit that the group has a readership about 6.63 crores and has a strong presence in radio business along with e-paper operations. The 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023publication has also created a twitter handle on 20.08.2009 with the user name @ dainikbhaskar. This group has got several reporters throughout 13 States in India, and it has been collecting news through trained journalists. One of the Reporters, one Vijay Singh Baghel, who is the Senior Correspondent had continuously reported for three days from Tamil Nadu on March 5th , 6th and 7th and also had interviewed four persons on 02.03.2023 from Tamil Nadu. Based on the inputs given by him, the videos were published in the twitter handle. Subsequently, they were also reported in the newspaper and the same was also widely circulated. On the same day, around 2.11 pm the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu had circulated a whatsapp message and in the other form of media stating that the reports were fake. Immediately coming to know about the same, the videos were removed from the web and they have also published a news article stating that the videos sent by the reporter is fake.5. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the publication functions strictly on the basis of information received from its reporters and only after due diligence, the corrected and 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023updated story will be published in all the forms of media. He would submit that the petitioner had no intention to create panic among the migrants in the State of Tamil Nadu or to promote enmity between different groups on the grounds of place of birth, language, residence etc. He would further submit that the petitioner has tendered his unconditional apology to this Court as well as to the people of Tamil Nadu for publishing a news, without verifying the veracity of the same.6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submits that it is a very serious and sensitive matter. The petitioner who claims to be the news editor of a leading magazine, without verifying the veracity of the news, had uploaded the contents which were likely to create panic among the migrants in the State of Tamil Nadu or to promote enmity between different groups on the grounds of place of birth, language, residence, etc. He would submit that the situation was very tense throughout the country. Relying on the report of the petitioner, several other youtubers have also raised alarm and created panic in the minds of 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023viewers throughout the country and elsewhere. He would submit that the petitioner, being very insensitive and irresponsible, had published the matter without taking into consideration the consequences which would have resulted. 7. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents and perused the material available on record including the F.I.R. 8. A perusal of records revealed that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he being an Editor of a reputed News Media Group, had spread a false and fake news in the Media as if people from a particular part of the nation are being violently attacked in Tamil Nadu and thereby he had created panic in the public and caused hazard and annoyance to public tranquility. 9. While dealing with a public interest litigation filed for redressal of grievances of migrant labourers during the pandemic period, the Apex Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava vs. Union of India (2020 SCC OnLine SC 345) has observed that the Media (print, 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023electronic or social) is expected to maintain a strong sense of responsibility and ensure that unverified news capable of causing panic is not disseminated. 10. The petitioner in the case on hand claims to be an Editor of a reputed publication which is in existence from the year 1958 and the publication group to which he belongs has a wide circulation throughout four States in North India. The Media is considered to be the fourth pillar of the democracy as it carries with such a huge power and responsibility as public repose their trust and confidence in the Media. The Media and Press need to adopt their professional ethics and take care of public interest instead of concentrating on sensational news alone for promoting their own commercial interest. Such a bounden duty cannot be shirked by them under the guise of freedom of speech. 11. Such being the expectation of the democratic system, it is painful to note that the petitioner, without verifying or exercising due diligence to find out the veracity of the news and without understanding the sensitivity, merely in order to sensitize the public, 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023had published a fake news. This Court strongly deprecates the act of the petitioner in publishing such a sensitive news, without verifying the correctness of the same. However, taking into consideration the unconditional apology rendered by the petitioner and the undertaking made on his behalf that he would publish a Corrigendum in the homepage itself that the news published by him is a fake one and that he would be more vigilant not to indulge into any such activities in future. 12. The registration of an FIR has the effect of choking the right of free speech. Freedom of Speech as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, admittedly the said news was originally published by Dainik Bhaskar and other publishers. Therefore, the petitioner is not originator of the said news. Infact on perusal of the news published by them also revealed that they had specifically mentioned about the incident which was published by Dainik Bhaskar and they also published another news saying that earlier news is fake one. Therefore, the registration of the FIR is 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023nothing but abuse of Penal Provision against an act of bonafide and fair publication of a news pertaining to a public controversy, is in teeth of Freedom of Speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) , more so when a bare perusal of the publication in question makes it amply clear that none of ingredients of the offences as alleged by the prosecution are made out. 13. In so far as offences punishable under Section 153 A of IPC is concerned there are no ingredients to attract the said offence. None of the statements contained in the report were made or directed at promoting enmity or hatred or ill-will between the groups or prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or which may have affected public tranquility, much less between any religious groups, nor did the petitioners do anything prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. On perusal of the news item published by the petitioner, there is nothing to show that that the petitioner had published the report with the intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence which is sine qua non for attracting the provision of Section 153A of IPC. 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 202314. The offence under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted in the present case, as the petitioner has not made, published, or circulated any statement, rumour, or report with the intention to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or any section thereof. Furthermore, there is no material to suggest that such statement, if any, was made with the intent or likelihood of inducing any person to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquility. 15. Further the Honble Supreme Court of India held in the case reported in 199 6 SCC 150 in the case of Union of India Vs. Motion Pictures Association held that'' free speech is the foundation of democratic society and free exchange of ideas, dissemination of information without restraints dissemination of knowledge, airing of differing view points, debating and forming one's own views and expressing them, are the basic indicia of a free society. The freedom alone makes it possible for people to formulate their own views and opinions on a property basis and to exercise their social, economic and political rights in a free society in an informed manner and therefore, any restraints on this right, therefore have been jealously watched by the Court''. 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 202316. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P (Criminal)No.155 of 2020 dated 09.12.2021 held that the “State force should never be used to either browbeat a political opinion or the journalists suffer the consequences of what is already in public domain. We hasten to add that this does not take away the responsibility of the journalist in how they report the matters more so in a '' twitter age” Therefore, the news which is allegedly published by the petitioner were already in public domain. 17. The above case is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Thus it is clear that curtailed freedom of speech and expression of the petitioner is arbitrarily and extra constitutional and thus fails the test of reasonableness. Hence, this Court finds that no offence is made out as against the petitioner and it is liable to be dismissed. 18. In view of the above, the FIR registered in Cr.No.337 of 2023 on the file of the respondent is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Vv 22.04.202511/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023To1. The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District.2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Vv Crl.O.P.No.9285 of 2023 22.04.202513/13

Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023 O R D E R This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.337 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent policefor offences under Sections 153A, 505(1)b and 505(2) of IPC, as against the petitioner.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2023 at 11.30 hrs, one Kannagi, the Special Sub Inspector of Police of Tiruppur North Police Station gave a written complaint stating that a false news was posted in the Twitter page of "Dainik Bhaskar" in Hindi and its English translated form with the help of Google was "BIHARI LABOURS IN TAMIL NADU ARE BEING PUNISHED BY THE TALIBAN FOR SPEAKING HINDI. HINDI SPEAKING PEOPLE ARE NOW BEING KILLED IN THE DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF WAGES THE YOUTH OF JAMUI TOLD -12 LABOURERS WERE HANGED MORE THAN 15 WERE MURDERED". It contained the following four false news:- (i)Bihari Laboureres in Tamilnadu are being punished by Taliban for speaking Hindi.(ii) Hindi speaking people are now being killed in the dispute arising out of wages. (iii) 12 Labourers were hanged, and (iv) More than 15 were murdered. 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 20233. As the said publication in the twitter was found apparently intending to cause fear and alarm to the migrants from Bihar working in Tamil Nadu including Tiruppur, whereby they might be induced to commit offences against the State and against the public tranquility. It was prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between the Biharis working as labourers in Tamil Nadu and Tamil population which was likely to disturb the public tranquility, a case was registered by Senthilmurugan, the Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No.337 of 2023 under Section 153-A and 505(1)(b) IPC,1860 against twitter page Dainik Bhaskar. 4. Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the News Editor of the Digital Division of Hindi Newspaper namely "Dainik Bhaskar". He would submit that the publication group had launched its debut edition in Hindi Daily on 13.08.1958 in Bhopal and it has a wide circulation throughout four States in North India. He would submit that the group has a readership about 6.63 crores and has a strong presence in radio business along with e-paper operations. The 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023publication has also created a twitter handle on 20.08.2009 with the user name @ dainikbhaskar. This group has got several reporters throughout 13 States in India, and it has been collecting news through trained journalists. One of the Reporters, one Vijay Singh Baghel, who is the Senior Correspondent had continuously reported for three days from Tamil Nadu on March 5th , 6th and 7th and also had interviewed four persons on 02.03.2023 from Tamil Nadu. Based on the inputs given by him, the videos were published in the twitter handle. Subsequently, they were also reported in the newspaper and the same was also widely circulated. On the same day, around 2.11 pm the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu had circulated a whatsapp message and in the other form of media stating that the reports were fake. Immediately coming to know about the same, the videos were removed from the web and they have also published a news article stating that the videos sent by the reporter is fake.5. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the publication functions strictly on the basis of information received from its reporters and only after due diligence, the corrected and 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023updated story will be published in all the forms of media. He would submit that the petitioner had no intention to create panic among the migrants in the State of Tamil Nadu or to promote enmity between different groups on the grounds of place of birth, language, residence etc. He would further submit that the petitioner has tendered his unconditional apology to this Court as well as to the people of Tamil Nadu for publishing a news, without verifying the veracity of the same.6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submits that it is a very serious and sensitive matter. The petitioner who claims to be the news editor of a leading magazine, without verifying the veracity of the news, had uploaded the contents which were likely to create panic among the migrants in the State of Tamil Nadu or to promote enmity between different groups on the grounds of place of birth, language, residence, etc. He would submit that the situation was very tense throughout the country. Relying on the report of the petitioner, several other youtubers have also raised alarm and created panic in the minds of 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023viewers throughout the country and elsewhere. He would submit that the petitioner, being very insensitive and irresponsible, had published the matter without taking into consideration the consequences which would have resulted. 7. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents and perused the material available on record including the F.I.R. 8. A perusal of records revealed that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he being an Editor of a reputed News Media Group, had spread a false and fake news in the Media as if people from a particular part of the nation are being violently attacked in Tamil Nadu and thereby he had created panic in the public and caused hazard and annoyance to public tranquility. 9. While dealing with a public interest litigation filed for redressal of grievances of migrant labourers during the pandemic period, the Apex Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava vs. Union of India (2020 SCC OnLine SC 345) has observed that the Media (print, 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023electronic or social) is expected to maintain a strong sense of responsibility and ensure that unverified news capable of causing panic is not disseminated. 10. The petitioner in the case on hand claims to be an Editor of a reputed publication which is in existence from the year 1958 and the publication group to which he belongs has a wide circulation throughout four States in North India. The Media is considered to be the fourth pillar of the democracy as it carries with such a huge power and responsibility as public repose their trust and confidence in the Media. The Media and Press need to adopt their professional ethics and take care of public interest instead of concentrating on sensational news alone for promoting their own commercial interest. Such a bounden duty cannot be shirked by them under the guise of freedom of speech. 11. Such being the expectation of the democratic system, it is painful to note that the petitioner, without verifying or exercising due diligence to find out the veracity of the news and without understanding the sensitivity, merely in order to sensitize the public, 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023had published a fake news. This Court strongly deprecates the act of the petitioner in publishing such a sensitive news, without verifying the correctness of the same. However, taking into consideration the unconditional apology rendered by the petitioner and the undertaking made on his behalf that he would publish a Corrigendum in the homepage itself that the news published by him is a fake one and that he would be more vigilant not to indulge into any such activities in future. 12. The registration of an FIR has the effect of choking the right of free speech. Freedom of Speech as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, admittedly the said news was originally published by Dainik Bhaskar and other publishers. Therefore, the petitioner is not originator of the said news. Infact on perusal of the news published by them also revealed that they had specifically mentioned about the incident which was published by Dainik Bhaskar and they also published another news saying that earlier news is fake one. Therefore, the registration of the FIR is 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023nothing but abuse of Penal Provision against an act of bonafide and fair publication of a news pertaining to a public controversy, is in teeth of Freedom of Speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) , more so when a bare perusal of the publication in question makes it amply clear that none of ingredients of the offences as alleged by the prosecution are made out. 13. In so far as offences punishable under Section 153 A of IPC is concerned there are no ingredients to attract the said offence. None of the statements contained in the report were made or directed at promoting enmity or hatred or ill-will between the groups or prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or which may have affected public tranquility, much less between any religious groups, nor did the petitioners do anything prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. On perusal of the news item published by the petitioner, there is nothing to show that that the petitioner had published the report with the intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence which is sine qua non for attracting the provision of Section 153A of IPC. 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 202314. The offence under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted in the present case, as the petitioner has not made, published, or circulated any statement, rumour, or report with the intention to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or any section thereof. Furthermore, there is no material to suggest that such statement, if any, was made with the intent or likelihood of inducing any person to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquility. 15. Further the Honble Supreme Court of India held in the case reported in 199 6 SCC 150 in the case of Union of India Vs. Motion Pictures Association held that'' free speech is the foundation of democratic society and free exchange of ideas, dissemination of information without restraints dissemination of knowledge, airing of differing view points, debating and forming one's own views and expressing them, are the basic indicia of a free society. The freedom alone makes it possible for people to formulate their own views and opinions on a property basis and to exercise their social, economic and political rights in a free society in an informed manner and therefore, any restraints on this right, therefore have been jealously watched by the Court''. 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 202316. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P (Criminal)No.155 of 2020 dated 09.12.2021 held that the “State force should never be used to either browbeat a political opinion or the journalists suffer the consequences of what is already in public domain. We hasten to add that this does not take away the responsibility of the journalist in how they report the matters more so in a '' twitter age” Therefore, the news which is allegedly published by the petitioner were already in public domain. 17. The above case is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Thus it is clear that curtailed freedom of speech and expression of the petitioner is arbitrarily and extra constitutional and thus fails the test of reasonableness. Hence, this Court finds that no offence is made out as against the petitioner and it is liable to be dismissed. 18. In view of the above, the FIR registered in Cr.No.337 of 2023 on the file of the respondent is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Vv 22.04.202511/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023To1. The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District.2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.9285 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Vv Crl.O.P.No.9285 of 2023 22.04.202513/13