An FIR filed against BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga at Cyber cell police station in Mohali was quashed by Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday. For the uninitiated, Bagga had given an interview on March 30, 2022, to the media in which he severely criticised AAP national convenor and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by saying “Agar wo maafi nahi mangte toh Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha ka ye Karyakarta unhe jine nahi dega (If he doesn't apologise, this Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha worker won't let him live).” The high court, however, granting relief to Bagga said, “Although the statement appears crude and uncouth, it does not have any disguised or obscured meaning.” FIR against Bagga As per the FIR against Bagga, on March 11, 2022, Hindi movie 'The Kashmir Files' was released. The petitioner (Bagga) claimed that various state governments had granted entertainment tax exemptions to the movie. But when a similar demand of concession was made for Delhi, its chief minister (Arvind Kejriwal) in the state assembly not only refused to grant any such concession but also allegedly mocked the authenticity of the movie’s storyline. It upset Bagga and being a spokesperson of BJP-Delhi, he gave the above mentioned interview to the media in which he severely criticised Kejriwal and demanded an apology for mocking the plight of Kashmiri Hindus. He also stated that the BJP’s youth wing would continue demonstration till Kejriwal apologises by making a statement that the genocide of Hindus that had taken place in Kashmir was not a hoax. Transcript of Bagga interview The transcript of the statement made by the petitioner reads as follows, “Aaj jo unhone kaha hai uske liye unhe maafi mangni chaiye. Agar wo maafi nahi mangte to Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha ka ye Karyakarta unhe jine nahi dega. - Hum sab tab tak apna pradarshan jaari rakhenge jab tak vo is desh ke Hinduoon se maafi nahi maang lete, ye kehne ke liye ki es desh ke Hinduoon ka narsanhaar hua tha Kashmir mein wo jhutha tha.” In English it translates roughly as: “He should apologise for what he has said today. If he doesn’t apologise, then this BJP worker will not let him live. They would continue their agitation till the time he apologises to the Hindus of this country for his statement that the genocide of Hindus in Kashmir was a lie.” This interview had got wide public attention and Bagga posted it on his Twitter handle and social media. Reasoning and analysis of HC while quashing FIR The bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara after hearing the arguments said, “The phrase, 'Jeene nahi doonga' cannot be seen independent of the entire statement made by the petitioner. The phrase precedes the petitioner’s warning of incessant protests, in case apology is not tendered. The contention that it was an act of criminal intimidation, a threat to kill, to a reasonable person is not conceivable if the statement is analysed and read in entirety.” Justice Chitkara added, “If a gangster, mafia, or a recidivist makes a statement that he will not let somebody live, the first probable reasonable assumption that is likely to be drawn is a threat to assassinate, however, an ordinary person, e.g., a nagging spouse or a disgruntled boss, makes such a statement in response to the doing or undoing of something, it would altogether have a different first impression. The petitioner’s statement did not seek an armed rebellion and was not a call to assault.” On the contention of Punjab Police that the petitioner had a criminal history and was booked for offences under Sections 452 and 153 A of the IPC which he had declared while submitting his application form for the Delhi assembly elections, Justice Chitkara said, “While considering any person's criminal history, such an assessment has to be based on reasonableness and not arbitrariness. The nature of offences, proximity, and the time lag are relevant factors when considering criminal history. A bare perusal of the FIRs reproduced above reveals that these are all for non-serious offences registered a decade earlier, and lacks proximity to the interview. Thus, based on this criminal history, there is nothing to assume that the petitioner is a habitual offender, or a gangster, or a mafia, or an anti-social element.” The HC added, “Merely because the language used by the petitioner is unrefined, it shall not be sufficient to import hatred, detestation, or slander to its contents. There is nothing in the statement to take the speech as an insult or threat, or an attempt to vilify the members of the targeted group or that it stigmatised them. There is nothing in the speech which points towards petitioner’s intention to divide the communities on regional and religious lines. The petitioner's agitation cannot be termed other than political, and there is no evidence of any specific incident in the complaint that led to the peace breach because of the statement. There is nothing to infer that the statement was so inciting that it would fall within the purview of hate speech and that it led to any violence or made fault lines in the structures of communities. Although the statement appears crude and uncouth, it does not have any disguised or obscured meaning.” Justice Chitkara said, “I have seen all the tweets and posts placed on record by the parties. There is no allegation that the petitioner had posted such tweets by entering the State of Punjab, or any incident had taken place within its territories due to such tweet. Every post of the petitioner will not give territorial jurisdiction to the State of Punjab to investigate in the guise of the present FIR. Had the investigating agency of another State been given that much leverage, it would impact the federal structure under the Indian Constitution, where every State has the right to maintain law and order within its territorial boundaries…even if all the allegations made in the complaint and subsequent investigation from social media posts, are true and correct at face value, they would not amount to a hate speech, and no case against the petitioner is made out.”
