ASHISH NANDY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R. bearing I-CR No.600 of 2008 registered by Satellite Police Station, Sub-District Satellite, District Ahmedabad (Rural) under Sections 153-A and 153-B IPC.

(2.) The petitioner has claimed that he was an eminent academician of international repute. He wrote an article in Delhi which was published on 8th January, 2008 in National edition of Times of India as well as in local editions of Times of India, a daily newspaper. His article was a critical analysis of outcome of Gujarat Legislative Election held in December, 2007 and he had commented on a sad and unfortunate polarization amongst people of Gujarat. Respondent No.2, Sh. V.K. Saxena, President of National Council for Civil Liberties having office at Ahmedabad served a notice on petitioner on 18th January, 2008 alleging that the article contained intemperate, distasteful, undue harsh, vituperative and sharp statement showing Gujarat in general and Gujaratis in particular in low light. Thereafter, Mr. Saxena made an application to the Government of Gujarat seeking permission to lodge F.I.R. against the petitioner for offences under Sections 153-A and 153-B IPC. This permission was accorded and F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner under Sections 153-A and 153-B IPC at Satellite Police Station. The petitioner learnt about registration of F.I.R. through newspapers.

(3.) The petitioner claimed that he had lamented the politics of hate and religious polarization that had clutched Gujarat politics since 2002. The petitioner had no intention to promote or create animosity or differences between different communities neither such an intention can be gathered from the article. It is stated that the F.I.R. does not disclose commission of offences under Sections 153-A and 153-B IPC. The F.I.R. was baseless and non-bonafide and it was in violation of petitioner's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was a resident of Delhi, the article was prepared and published from Delhi and the cause of action, if any, arose in Delhi. The petitioner felt insecured and frightened as offences under Sections 153-A and 153-B IPC were cognizable and non-bailable and there was apprehension that the petitioner may be arrested. A prayer is made that the F.I.R. be quashed.