Derogatory utterances about deceased public figures: HC seeks reply from Centre, State to PIL for guidelines

The Court directed that the name of Hindutva activist Sambhaji Bhide, who allegedly made remarks against Mahatma Gandhi be deleted as respondent in the PIL.

However, petitioners said that removing Bhide’s name as respondent would make the plea merely ‘academic’. The bench said that the petitioner’s claim that cause of action for PIL is only because Bhide’s utterances was not right, and there could be others who made such utterances too.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor was hearing a PIL by Maharashtra Gandhi Smarak Nidhi (MGSN) through its trustee secretary Sandip Jayant Barve along with social activists Dr Kumar Saptarshi and Anvar Rajan.

The PIL, in the alternative, also sought a direction to Maharashtra government to identify deceased persons held in high esteem by various groups in the state and declare their list. Thereafter, the PIL said, directions can be issued that ‘no derogatory remarks about any such persons are permitted to be published on any platform, including social media’.

Senior advocate Anil Anturkar, representing the petitioners, argued that the petitioners were merely concerned that groups with differing ideologies and heroes should not end up maligning each other’s heroes. “National heroes should remain undisturbed in their grave or wherever they are”, Anturkar argued.

Responding to the prayer seeking quashing of explanation in sections 499 and 500 under IPC, the bench questioned the petitioner, as to whether it could expand the scope of the section. “Will it not amount to legislating or forming an adaptive thicket that will lead to interference in executive action? Are you not inviting us to enter into policy-making issues?” the bench asked. The petitioners said that it was not what they were pressing for.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf representing Maharashtra government said the field of defamation was extensive and is sufficiently legislated upon and proper framework has been carved out. “The law relating to crimes can’t take into account sentiments of certain sections of society. Apart from legislation, the State also has to look into logistics and infrastructure to handle such crimes. To create a list of such persons who are held in high esteem, this kind of direction is incapable of implementation” Saraf argued.

Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas and advocate Shardul Singh for the central government argued that if someone is aggrieved by certain utterances against a person of historical importance, then that person can approach the court with appropriate proceedings pertaining to obscene utterances.

The bench also questioned the Centre as to whether the existing IPC consisted of directive principles under Article 51A (b) (cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom) and 51A (e) which stipulated promoting harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst sectional diversities.

“The provisions under the Constitution say we have to cherish constitutional ideals. If it hurts feelings of sectional identities, then the criminal defamation section is not available to such a group, but it is available only to family members,” the court said. It also said that it will appoint a lawyer as an amicus curiae to assist the court in the case.