Read Time: 09 minutes

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has quashed yet another FIR against activist Maridhas for an old video he made on Tablighi Jamaat, criticising their conference of March 2020 during the COVID first wave. The FIR was registered based on a complaint filed by Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam leader Mohammed Khader Meeran on April 4, 2020. 

The Court has said that in the video, Maridhas has nowhere targeted Islam or the religious beliefs of Muslims as a class.
“In fact, the petitioner has given several disclaimers in his video,” Court said.

It is the Court’s opinion that the activist had repeatedly cautioned the viewers that his presentation should not be misconstrued as criticism of Muslims.
“There is no reference to religion even in the remotest sense of the term in the video in question. By no stretch of imagination could Section 295A of IPC have been invoked,” court added.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed that, no part of the video questioned the religious belief of Muslims but has only criticized about the irresponsible behaviour of the congregation.

“Criticism of an organization cannot be taken as a criticism of a community. Tablighi Jamaat cannot be equated with Islam. It is a religious organization professing particular goals. No one can deny that Tablighi Jamaat came under severe and harsh criticism for its reckless and irresponsible conduct during March 2020.”

The Bench while allowing the present criminal petition noted that, “the very registration of the impugned FIR is illegal and it stands quashed.”

Maridhas was booked under Sections 292(A) (publishing grossly indecent or scurrilous matter intended for blackmail), 295(A) (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), and 505A (statement creating or promoting enmity or ill will between classes) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in the electronic form) of the IT Act.

The Counsel for petitioner reiterated his contention in his plea and stated that,

“the petitioner as a responsible YouTuber and commentator on current affairs had merely exercised his right to free speech. According to him, the petitioner had not committed any of the offences set out in the FIR.”

The Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant stated that, “the petitioner had conducted himself with scant regard for truth. He tried to create a false alarm as if because of the attendees of the aforesaid conference, the pandemic would sweep the entire country. The presentation of the petitioner was replete with references to Islam and terrorism. Any normal person watching the video would develop feelings of ill-will and hatred towards Muslims.”

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Amish Devgan vs. Union of India, the Advocate general called upon by court stated that,

“The petitioner is a prominent social media personality. He ought to have been responsible while putting out his views. The video presentation runs to twenty seven minutes. The petitioner has used potentially provocative expressions. It is not necessary that public tranquility must have been actually disturbed as a result of the petitioner's act. It is enough if it is shown that there was a likelihood of breach of peace.”

Taking into account the factual matrix of the case the Bench noted that,

“The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in this case. Due to the pandemic-induced lockdown, the petitioner did not surrender and execute sureties. This has been taken advantage of by the state police. The petitioner is under arrest. In these circumstances, since the liberty of the petitioner was involved, the quash petition was taken up for disposal.”

Previously on 16th December, the Madras High Court had quashed an FIR registered against YouTuber Maridhas, who was imprisoned over a tweet saying that "Tamil Nadu is becoming into another Kashmir under DMK administration."

Passing the order on a petition filed by Maridhas, Justice GR Swaminathan had observed, “A ‘YouTuber’ or any social media personality regularly commenting on public affairs would also be entitled to the very same rights which are accorded to journalists and the media under Article 19(1)(a) — Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression—of the Constitution.”

[Case Title – Maridhas v. State & Anr.]

 

Also Read - Arrested once again, Activist Maridhas moves Madras High Court