SC: State force should never be used to browbeat political opinion, journalists

New Delhi: State force should never be used to either browbeat a political opinion or journalists, the Supreme Court has said, calling for "introspection from the political class across the country" over debasement in dialogue which is taking place even as it asked scribes to be more responsible in the twitter age.

A bench comprising Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh made these observations while quashing the FIRs against editors of a news web portal and others, in connection with articles published in West Bengal.

In a country which prides itself on its diversity, there are bound to be different perceptions and opinions which would include political opinions, the apex court said.

That is very essence of a democracy, it said.

State force should never be used to either browbeat a political opinion or the journalists suffer the consequences of what is already in public domain.

We hasten to add that this does not take away the responsibility of the journalists in how they report the matters, more so in a twitter age, the bench said. The observations came after senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing on behalf of the West Bengal government, informed the bench that the state has decided to withdraw the FIRs registered against Nupur J Sharma, the editor of English language Opindia.com, YouTuber Ajeet Bharti and others including its founder and CEO.

The top court said that it was not inclined to let go off the opportunity of saying something which is troubling the society and the court.

It is undoubtedly the debasement in the dialogue which is taking place which needs introspection from the political class across the country. In a country which prides itself on its diversity, there are bound to be different perceptions and opinions which would include political opinions.

The present proceedings in a way emanate from the same. We say so as what the petitioners have done is to reproduce what the political class has stated against each other and which is already in public domain, an aspect pointed out eminently by senior counsel for the petitioners, it said.

The bench said that no doubt by the very nature of the job required to be performed by the political class, at times their exchanges may get heated.

But it should not explode. We are sure difference in perceptions can be expressed in better language, it said in its order uploaded today.

The top court had earlier stayed further proceedings in a fresh FIR lodged in West Bengal against them.

On June 26 last year, the top court had stayed further proceedings in three FIRs lodged in West Bengal against petitioners.

In their intervention application, Sharma and others had said that they are constrained to move the top court due to persistent hounding and victimisation by the West Bengal government, who in its endeavour to scuttle inconvenient media reports registered multiple FIRs against them.

The application had further said, "That the order dated June 26, 2020, came as a respite to the petitioners whose honour, life and liberty were sought to be repeatedly undermined by the state..."