In a groundbreaking judgment, the Gujarat High Court quashed several FIRs filed against three individuals, including Kalpesh Vaghabhai Chaudhary, who had been accused of forming a Telegram group to advocate for police pay raises. The Court, led by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, ruled that creating a group on a messaging platform to discuss legitimate grievances does not amount to a criminal conspiracy.
Case Background
The controversy began when FIRs were filed across multiple districts in Gujarat, including Navsari, Valsad, Surat, Tapi, and Dang. The allegations centered around the formation of a Telegram group called "2800police 5RPF_Districtwise," which was created without the knowledge or consent of some members. The petitioners, including Kalpesh Vaghabhai Chaudhary, Vadher Rajesh Hamic, and Kapil Bhagvanbhai Desai, were accused of circulating messages that could potentially incite disaffection among police personnel and stir public unrest during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Represented by Advocate R.B. Thakor, the petitioners argued that the group was formed to address legitimate concerns about police pay hikes and service benefits, asserting that their actions fell under the protection of the right to free speech and expression. They sought to have the FIRs quashed.
Legal Issues Explored
The Court was asked to determine whether the formation of the Telegram group and its internal discussions constituted offenses under:
1. Sections 120(B) and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections deal with criminal conspiracy and statements made with intent to cause fear or incite public disorder.
2. Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act: This section pertains to the circulation of false warnings or alarms that could cause panic.
3. Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922: This law addresses actions that could incite disaffection among police forces.
Court’s Ruling and Observations
Justice Suthar, in his ruling, made it clear that forming a group on Telegram to discuss genuine grievances cannot be classified as a criminal conspiracy. He underscored that in a democratic society, individuals have the right to voice their concerns. The Court noted that the prosecution had failed to show any direct impact on public order or state security, which would be required to invoke Section 505 of the IPC.
Justice Suthar remarked, "Merely forming a group on Telegram to discuss legitimate demands cannot be considered a criminal conspiracy. The right to voice grievances is fundamental in a democratic society."
The Court found no evidence of any criminal intent or conspiracy, stating that the essential elements needed to establish such a charge were absent. Justice Suthar also condemned the filing of multiple FIRs for the same alleged act, calling it an abuse of the legal process. He cited important Supreme Court precedents, including the cases of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and M.N. Sharma vs. Union of India, to support his decision.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the petitioners' discussions about police pay hikes did not amount to spreading panic under Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act. There was no evidence of any false alarms or warnings issued by the group.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the allegations, asserting that the formation of the Telegram group to discuss police grievances did not constitute a criminal conspiracy. Justice Suthar emphasized that there was no malicious intent or any actions on the part of the petitioners that could incite disaffection among police personnel or create public panic.
This ruling reinforces the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression, especially when individuals are merely advocating for their rights in a democratic system.
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
