Jammu: In a judgment which has assumed significance in an era of global interaction through social media, the special Railway Magistrate, Sub Judge Yahaya Firdous has dismissed a complaint filed by a senior practicing advocate Jagjit Rai against the Vice Chancellor of Jammu University Prof. R.D.Sharma seeking action against the later u/s 500 RPC for his post update on Facebook.
While dismissing the complaint which has been filed by advocate Jagjit Rai for seeking action under section 500 of RPC against Prof Sharma for his post “ If an advocate becomes mad, his client goes to hell” update on social networking site FB, the court observed that world’s biggest democratic country India, has the benefit of one of the most modern and liberal constitution. It’s reflective of its rich and diverse heritage, yet enunciating the modern principles of democracy, as distinguished from a feudal society. One of the most cherished rights under our constitution is to speak one’s mind and write that one thinks. No doubt, this is subject to reasonable restrictions, but then the ambit of what one can do is wide. Times have changed, what was not acceptable earlier became acceptable later. What is right and acceptable to one may not be so to others. Yet, the right to write is unhindered.
The complainant in his allegations stated before that court that he was engaged as counsel by Prof Gouri D. Bajju in various cases pending before the subordinate as well as High Court pertaining to a matter when Prof Sharma was member of one screening committee. Later, when Prof. Sharma became Vice Chancellor of JU, the client of the complainant has approached the appellant (VC) pertaining to some information which she was not adequately supplied earlier in response to RTI application.
Advocate Rai alleged that instead of responding to RTI of his client, Prof Sharma posted a FB remark on May 9, 2018 at 2144 “If an advocate becomes mad, his client goes to hell” which led to sharing, likes and sparks volley of reactions from various persons across the country which according to the complainant advocate were also includes some alleged derogatory remarks against the “advocate” by some FB profile.
The complainant contended before the court that Prof Sharma intentionally posted the comment on FB to diminish his dignity and reputation in the society as well in the judiciary.
The court after listening to the arguments and counter arguments of complainant as well as defense counsel held that Sec 499 RPC provides for defamation and Sec 500 RPC provides for punishment in the respect of said offence. However, in the present case, the two ingredients i.e. the imputations made by the accused are defamatory in nature and that the such imputations relate to complainant directly don’t qualify to proceed against Prof under sec 499 RPC. “Going through the content of the complainant and statement of the witnesses made in support of the former and other material, there is no sufficient ground to proceed against Prof Sharma as warranted u/s 200 CrPc. Thus the complaint against Prof R.D.Sharma stands dismissed” court observed.