Punjab and Haryana HC: Can't gag voice of dissent against public representatives

CHANDIGARH

: The Punjab and Haryana high court has observed that

voice of dissent

against or criticism of acts of a public representative cannot be silenced by the institution of

criminal proceedings

merely because it is "not palatable to the person holding the position of dominance."
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj

said this while quashing an FIR registered against one Ajay Walia for criticising the then MP from Kurukshetra and current Haryana CM

Nayab Saini

and his wife Suman Saini for misquoting

Sant Kabir Dass

in an advertisement issued on their behalf during Covid-19 pandemic.

Walia is a govt teacher from Naraingarh in Haryana's Ambala district.
Justice Bhardwaj also observed that a member of Parliament or legislative assembly is deemed a public servant and being a public person, his acts and conduct would be amenable to public criticism and public review.
Virtually reprimanding Haryana police for being "unfair", the HC observed that in this case, the police "had not carried out a fair job" and instead were worried about earning the displeasure of a person in the seat of power in the event of a proper investigation being done.

The petitioner was booked by Haryana police on May 9, 2020, on the complaint of Kehar Singh, president of Saini Sabha, Naraingarh, for posting a critical post on social media about an advertisement issued on behalf of Nayab Saini and his wife.
Walia had mentioned in his social media post that he had read Sant Kabir in Kabir Wani, Sakhi, Sabad, Raimani and Bijak, but "do not know when, where and in which book, Sant Kabir has written this rhymed doha of throwing out Corona from India."
Seeking quashing of the FIR, Walia had contended before the HC that a mere expression of dissent or disagreement cannot be construed as an offence of promoting hatred amongst different segments of society.
"Bona fide, fair and constructive criticism of members of the public, in a democratic country, made with due care and attention... is privileged and would not amount to defamation...," said Justice Bhardwaj.