“Courts Not Supposed To Do Moral Policing”: SC Sets Aside HC Order Against Tehseen Poonawalla

Tehseen Poonawalla

In a significant ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had imposed a Rs 10 lakh fine on political analyst Tehseen Poonawalla for mocking Jain monk Tarun Sagar.

The apex court’s decision emphasized that courts should refrain from engaging in moral policing.

Court Criticizes High Court’s Approach

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the 2019 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had directed Poonawalla and music composer Vishal Dadlani to pay the fine. The high court had imposed the fine as part of its order to quash an FIR against the two for their comments about Tarun Sagar.

Court expressed strong disapproval of the fine, stating that the high court appeared to have been influenced by the fact that Poonawalla criticized a religious figure. “What kind of order is this? There was no question of imposing costs. The court acquitted the appellants but imposed costs. Courts are not supposed to do moral policing,” the bench remarked.

Case Background

Tehseen Poonawalla had approached the Supreme Court challenging the high court’s decision. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had directed both Poonawalla and Dadlani to pay Rs 10 lakh each to have the FIR against them quashed. The high court had justified the fine as a means to send a message that mocking religious leaders would not be tolerated.

Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that such fines for personal criticism of religious figures should not be part of judicial proceedings. This decision marks an important stance on the boundaries of judicial intervention and the protection of free expression.

Implications Of Ruling

The ruling highlights the importance of safeguarding freedom of expression and underscores the role of the judiciary in protecting individuals from undue penalization for their comments, especially when it comes to religious figures. The case draws attention to the delicate balance between maintaining respect for religious sentiments and upholding the fundamental right to free speech.

This judgment from the Supreme Court reinforces the principle that courts should avoid engaging in moral or societal policing and instead focus on the legal aspects of cases before them.

The ruling is expected to have broader implications for similar cases, where individuals face legal consequences for expressing personal opinions about religious leaders or institutions.