The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday quashed two FIRs lodged nearly five years ago against activist Teesta Setalvad, for tweeting a picture allegedly drawing parallels between a Hindu goddess and an ISIS terrorist. The FIRs were lodged in August 2014 at Ghatlodia police station in Ahmedabad by Vishva Hindu Parishad activist Raju Patel, and at C Division police station in Bhavnagar by one Kirit Mistry. Setalvad's tweet had included a photoshopped image, allegedly drawing a visual parallel between Hindu goddess Kali and ISIS terrorists in a photograph with slain American journalist James Foley. She subsequently tweeted an apology for her tweet, saying “Sincere apologies for inadvertent tweet. She explained in her apology note: “The moment I realised that the illustration had created a controversy and hurt many people, I deleted the tweet and tweeted an immediate apology for having inadvertently hurt their feelings.” Speaking to The Indian Express, advocate Yogesh Ravani, who represented Setalvad, said, “The court quashed the FIRs on the grounds that there was no malafide or deliberate intention and she had not intended to hurt anyone.” He said it was a “balanced judgment, based on Article 19 (of the Constitution which guarantees free speech and expression) and provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code”. Setalvad had filed two petitions seeking the quashing of the two FIRs. The Bhavnagar FIR had initially been tried at the district court, but the trial was subsequently stayed and taken up by the High Court. At the time, Justice JB Pardiwala said that Setalvad had been “able to make out a strong prima facie case to have an interim order,” following which the investigation was stayed, Setalvad’s advocate said. The activist was also granted anticipatory bail. Setalvad had been charged under Indian Penal Code sections 153(a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups) and section 295 (a)(outraging religious feelings), as well as under the Information Technology Act sections 65 (tampering with computer source documents), 66A (Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services, etc), 66B (Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device) and 66 C (Punishment for Identity Theft, Misuse of Digital Signature).
