Why Punjab and Haryana High Court used famous philosophy theory to deny bail to senior official

“Words have a consequential meaning; they carry an emotional, psychological, and even a physical impact. Intentions are carried through the words. That is why the learned wise people caution that words be spoken with care lest they cause an altercation, misunderstandings, or even a heartbreak,” the court said on May 20.

Justice Sumeet Goel said that language allegedly used is not only abusive in nature but is also prima facie capable of inciting resentment, hostility, and communal disharmony against specific community.

Underscoring that any unwitting or unintentional remarks passed against a community, repeated articulations, or even a one-time intense diatribe, or even a forceful articulation, can have cascading ramifications, Justice Goel noted that against a person, such an inquiry caused by words could still be sutured, but against a community, the injury multiplies. The order added that, therefore, the healing hand needs to be in tandem.

‘Words not only communicative but also perform actions’

The court applied the ‘Speech Act Theory’, delineated by John Searle and J L Austin, to analyse the impact of the petitioner’s words. Justice Goel noted that spoken words do not merely have a communicative purpose but also perform actions.

“The ‘Locutionary Act’ is the literal production of the sounds and words: the basic physical act of saying something with a specific grammar and meaning. Yet, the ‘illocutionary Act’ is the core purpose behind the words, representing what the speaker is actually doing – such as promising, warning, or commanding,” the court observed.

The order contained that whereas the “Perlocutionary Act” is the effect or consequence the utterance has on the listener. This involves whether the listener is persuaded, alarmed, or convinced by what was said. Therefore, words have a consequential meaning; they carry an emotional, psychological, and even a physical impact.

‘Language capable of inciting hostility, communal disharmony’

• The material collected during the course of the investigation prima facie reflects that objectionable and derogatory remarks targeting a particular community have been made in the course of the conversation in which the petitioner was an active participant.
• The language allegedly used is not only abusive in nature but is also prima facie capable of inciting resentment, hostility, and communal disharmony against a specific community.
• The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the conversation was private in nature cannot, at this stage, dilute the seriousness of the allegations, particularly when the contents entered the public domain and allegedly generated communal tension in the area.
• It is apt that the petitioner admittedly holds the post of superintending engineer in UHBVNL and is a senior public functionary entrusted with responsibilities affecting the public at large.
• A person occupying such a position is expected to maintain restraint, uphold constitutional morality, and exhibit sensitivity towards all sections of society, irrespective of caste, creed, or religion.
• The court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigation is at a nascent stage. The allegations are not confined merely to the utterance of objectionable words but also extend to the alleged misuse of official position.
• The possibility of the petitioner, thus, interference with the investigation cannot be ruled out at this stage.

• The plea of the petitioner that he has a good service record cannot, by itself, create a ground for the grant of anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
• It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s).
• The court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on society.

Case of alleged derogatory remark on specific community

The petitioner was a Superintending Engineer in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, participated in a conversation wherein derogatory, inflammatory, and abusive remarks were allegedly made against members of a particular caste/community, and was seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 196(1) of BNS, 2023.

The FIR in question reflects that a video clip containing objectionable remarks against a particular community was circulated on social media, and the same became viral in the area. According to the prosecution’s case, the petitioner allegedly participated in a conversation where derogatory, inflammatory, and abusive remarks were made against members of a particular caste/community.

It has been further stated that the allegations further suggest that the remarks had been further stated that the allegations further suggest that the remarks had tension. Accordingly, the investigation was set into motion for the commission of offences punishable under Section 196(1) BNS.