The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that a citizen exercising his right to protest by sending texts to an official on his/her mobile cannot be charged with obstructing a public worker from performing his or her official duties.
A Bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and MM Sathaye quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against Avijit Michael, who had sent messages to then-Managing Director of Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation (MMRC) Ashwini Bhide urging her not to cut down over 3,000 trees in the city’s only green lung – Aarey Colony – for metro construction.
After reviewing the texts, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s purpose was solely to safeguard the forest, which he regards as working as a pair of lungs for the Mumbai city.
“There is no offensive language or obscenities in these messages. Rather, they appear to have been sent in assertion of a citizen’s democratic right to express himself, to object, to protest, to convince, to urge, and so on. It follows that if somebody is arrested for criminal offences like those lodged against the current petitioner, it may amount to an infringement on the rights of citizens in this country,” the order stated.
“Upon such a complaint, as the one involved here, police must never book any ordinary citizen of the country under criminal law, and if it does, it would be like suppressing his voice against what he considers to be a wrongful thing. As a result, we conclude that no violation under Section 186 of the IPC has been established against the petitioner,” the court stated, on the complaint registered on behalf of Bhide by another person.
Michael’s words claimed that, just like Cubbon Park is a green lung for Bangalore, Aarey is a green lung for Mumbai. As a result, the removal of nearly 3,500 trees for the construction of the metro car shed would have a negative impact on the city’s greenery.
Bhide stated that the messages had “shocked, offended, and obstructed” him. She did not, however, file a complaint. Rather, the Mumbai Police’s Cyber Cell opened an investigation into the petitioner after receiving a complaint from a private citizen.
After reviewing the messages, the Court concluded that they do not demonstrate that the petitioner meant to hinder Bhide or that he was aware that by sending those messages, he would have the impact of blocking Bhide from performing her official obligations.
“At face value, these messages show that the sender of the messages intended to make efforts for tree preservation in the larger interest of society,” the Court stated.
As a result, the FIR in question was invalidated, and the police were warned to be cautious when recording crimes in such cases in the future.
