Notices sent after court’s order Don’t harass people, SC tells Tripura Police

“Otherwise we will call SP to court and make him answerable if we find he’s trying to evade compliance. We will ask them to appear, including your (state) Home Secretary. Once we have passed order covering issue you must show responsibility”, the two-judge bench of justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant said.

The top court was hearing a petition by Samiullah Shabbir Khan, who was issued a notice to appear before Tripura Police under Section 41A (Notice of appearance before police officer) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Khan’s counsel Shahrukh Alam told the court that the police summons was in violation of SC’s January 10 order, which restrained the force from taking any action in connection with the tweets by the petitioner.

Alam said Khan – a “socially conscious student” — was summoned on Tuesday, and several other social media users were sent the notices over the issue.

“I didn’t request for dasti (by hand) notice so physical service is still incomplete. That order (January 10) hasn’t reached the Superintendent of Police,” Alam told the court, but said that the ruling “was well reported”.

Justice Chandrachud then turned to the counsel for the Tripura government and directed the state to “communicate a copy of the order and meanwhile don’t take action on the notice (to Khan)”.

The state counsel urged the court to “hold” the matter for two weeks, prompting Justice Surya Kant to say: “What do you mean hold over for two weeks when you have issued notice for today?”

“The counsel for the petitioner, states that the order dated 10 January 2022 passed by this court, though reported widely, has formally remained to be served on the superintendent of police. Be that as it may, a notice under section 41 A of the CrPC dated 20 January 2022 was issued… requiring the attendance of the petitioner today,” the bench noted in the order.

It added that “since petitioner has already been protected, no further steps be taken in pursuance of 41 A notice pending further orders”. The court also asked the state counsel to communicate Monday’s order and the January 10 ruling to the Tripura Superintendent of Police.

The matter is related to social media posts made in the aftermath of alleged communal violence in Tripura in November last year. Vandalism and arson incidents were reportedly triggered in the state after attacks on Hindu communities in Bangladesh.

During Monday’s hearing, Alam also told the court that other social media users have been sent notices, and some of them have approached SC as well. “Notices have been issued to all. Some of them are already before your Lordships, some have filed writs,” Alam had said.

The court said it cannot pass an order on those petitions without those being listed, and asked Alam to reach out to court masters and get diary numbers for the petitions so that they can be listed for hearing. To this, Alam said that the “process will become punishment”.

Addressing the state counsel, Justice Chandrachud told Tripura Police not harass people. “What is this if not harassment, asked Justice Kant.

When the counsel for the state government said that he has no instructions in the matter, the bench said, “What else is all this if it is not harassment? It is a very innocuous statement to say you don’t have instructions here while you keep doing all this.”

As the hearing came to an end, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the bench: “I will look into it and I will ensure that the sanctity of your lordships’ orders is ensured in letter and in spirit.”