The Supreme Court on Thursday granted anticipatory bail to Uttar Pradesh BJP spokesperson Prashant Patel Umrao with respect to various FIRs that have been filed over spreading false information on Twitter about alleged assaults on Bihari workers in Tamil Nadu.
The SC also voiced its displeasure at Umrao and ordered him to apologise for spreading misinformation, noting that he should be more responsible, particularly as a lawyer.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Pankaj Mithal was hearing two petitions filed by the advocate and BJP leader: a writ petition for the clubbing of the FIRs registered against him in different police stations over the tweet, and a special leave petition against the condition imposed by the Madras High Court while granting him anticipatory bail.
The bench issued a notice on the writ plea and modified the Madras High Court’s requirement that he appear before the police for 15 days.
“The requirement that the petitioner report to the police station between 10.30 AM and 5.30 PM for 15 days is modified. He shall appear on Monday at 10 a.m. and thereafter as and when the investigating officer requires,” the bench ruled.
Aside from that, the Supreme Court passed an ad interim order stating that the anticipatory bail given by the High Court would be applicable to any other FIRs filed in the state of Tamil Nadu for the same cause of action. According to the state’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, the other FIRs do not identify Prashant as an accused.
Appearing on behalf of Patel, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra informed the bench that the accused had only tweeted news that had already been shared by various media outlets. He stated, “He tweeted. There was an inaccuracy. When he realised this, he deleted the tweet. There are now numerous first information reports of the young man being harassed.”
“Why should we be so sensitive these days?” asked Justice Gavai. The Supreme Court judge was also surprised by the high court’s bail requirement. “What are you doing for five hours every day for 15 days?” Justice Gavai inquired.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state police, refused to acknowledge that the condition was incorrect. “It is only for questioning,” argued the senior counsel. He also highlighted that the BJP spokesperson had not appeared before the authorities or submitted an affidavit stating that he would refrain from posting any tweet that would encourage animosity between various groups. “He should at least comply with the other conditions,” the senior counsel said. “Why hasn’t the affidavit been filed until today?” He also claimed that his remark was irresponsible and had far-reaching ramifications. “Take a look at his post. He is a lawyer. A lawyer is saying Hindi-speaking individuals are being targeted in Tamil Nadu,” he stated.
“What is his standing in the bar?” Justice Gavai inquired. Patel has been a member of the Bar for seven years and is presently a standing counsel for Goa, the bench was told. “He should be more responsible,” Justice Gavai said, requesting that the embattled counsel apologise before the next hearing.
Umrao claimed in a tweet on February 23 that 15 migrant workers were assaulted for speaking Hindi, 12 of whom died. Videos of migrant workers reportedly being attacked in Tamil Nadu were also circulated on social media last month. They were ultimately debunked as false by fact-checkers and the state police department, but not before they sparked widespread panic.
Patel was arrested by Thoothukudi Central police for allegedly spreading false information in violation of IPC Sections 153 (wantonly providing provocation with intent to cause riot), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of the peace), and 505 (intentional insult to provoke breach of the peace) (statements conducing to public mischief).
A single judge of the Madras High Court granted him anticipatory bail, but Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan ordered him to appear before the investigating officer daily for a period of 15 days. This condition has been challenged in the SLP filed before the Supreme Court.
Patel was also granted anticipatory bail only after swearing before the jurisdictional magistrate that he would refrain from tweeting or forwarding any message that would promote enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, and so on. The BJP spokesperson claimed, among other things, that he had only retweeted stories released by private news channels.
He also told the single judge that after learning that the news had not been verified, he deleted the tweets. Patel also claimed in front of the state high court that he was the target of a “political vendetta.” Patel had also tweeted, “I oppose any form of discrimination based on religion, race, place of birth, or language. I was made a victim because of an opposite political ideology.”
Noting that his tweets caused a “sorry state of affairs,” the high court judge stated that Patel, as an advocate and member of a national political party, should have considered the repercussions of such tweets. “It is a sad state of affairs that the petitioner is an advocate and is actively involved in a national political party. He must bear some societal obligation. Before tweeting or forwarding Twitter messages, he must consider the repercussions and the genuineness of the messages,” the judge stated.
Patel claimed in the writ petition, which was heard alongside the special leave petition against the Madras High Court’s order, that numerous complaints had been filed over the same tweets posted by him.
