‘Courts not meant for moral policing’: SC quashes cost imposed on music composer Vishal Dadlani for tweets against Jain monk

“We are of the view that after finding that absolutely no offence was made out when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, High Court ought not to have exercised advisory jurisdiction by telling the appellant that the contribution made by the priest was much more than what the appellant and the other accused have contributed. Function of the court is not to do moral policing”, the bench said.

It said instead, the High Court should have imposed the cost on the party who lodged the complaint. It said, “perhaps High Court was swayed by the fact that the appellant and the other accused made criticism of a priest belonging to a particular religion.”

Dadlani had posted the allegedly objectionable tweets mocking the Jain monk’s appearance after the Haryana Assembly extended an invitation to the latter to address it on social and political issues in August 2016. He later apologised for his comments.

Poonawala also tweeted in a similar manner. One of his tweets also had a photoshopped image of a lady whose face was not shown, in a sitting posture wearing only undergarments, clubbed with the photograph of the Jain monk.

The Jain monk passed away in September 2018.

The High Court engaged a member of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Advocate Sandeep Jain, as an intervener to assist the court in the matter.

He informed the High Court that Dadlani had appeared before the Jain Muni and that the latter had forgiven him. The monk also told his followers to forgive, Sandeep Jain pointed out, adding that due to this, none of the followers had come forward to lodge any complaint before any court of law or to appear before any police authorities in support of the impugned FIR as they believe in Jainism, which is spreading message of non-violence, peace and harmony in the society and preaches forgiveness to all the members of their community.

In an interview, the Jain monk too said he had forgiven Dadlani, saying he does not know about the Jainism, their monks and their lifestyle as Digambar Sadhus, who remain naked.

The High Court quashed the FIR registered under Sections 295-A, 153-A and 509 IPC and Section 66E of the I.T. Act, and all other proceedings arising therefrom.

The High Court added, “however, the question now arises that in view of above, the petitions be simply allowed or in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., justice can also be done to the followers of Jain religion. If the contribution made by the petitioners towards poor people is compared to the contribution made by Jain Muni Tarun Sagar, it is apparent that the petitioners have played a mischief to gain publicity without having much to their credit.”

It said that “in recent years, the country has witnessed large scale violent protest on incitement made by using social media platform, thereby, causing extensive damage to public property. However, the preachings of Jain Muni Tarun Sagar about non-violence, sacrifices and forgiveness, has avoided repetition of such like protest.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to impose the costs of `10 lacs each on the petitioner – Vishal Dadlani and the petitioner – Tehseen Poonawala, so that in future they may not mock at any head of a religious sect, just to gain publicity on social media like Twitter.”