In a landmark decision, the Gujarat High Court quashed multiple FIRs against three petitioners, including Kalpesh Vaghabhai Chaudhary, who were accused of forming a Telegram group to advocate for police pay hikes. The Court, led by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, held that merely creating a group on a messaging platform to discuss legitimate demands does not amount to a criminal conspiracy.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a series of FIRs filed across various districts in Gujarat, including Navsari, Valsad, Surat, Tapi, and Dang, alleging that the petitioners created a Telegram group named “2800police_SRPF_Districtwise” without the knowledge or consent of some members. The FIRs accused the petitioners of circulating messages that could incite disaffection among police personnel and create public panic during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioners, including Kalpesh Vaghabhai Chaudhary, Vadher Rajesh Hamir, and Kapil Bhagvanbhai Desai, sought to quash the FIRs, arguing that the group was formed to discuss legitimate grievances regarding police pay hikes and service benefits, and that their actions were protected under the right to freedom of expression. They were represented by Advocate Mr. R.B. Thakor.
Key Legal Issues
The Court examined whether the formation of the Telegram group and the discussions within it constituted offences under:
1. Sections 120(B) and 505(1)(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Pertaining to criminal conspiracy and making statements with the intent to cause fear or incite public disorder.
2. Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act – Relating to circulating false alarms or warnings that could lead to panic.
3. Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 – Concerning actions that could incite disaffection among police forces.
Justice Suthar remarked:
“Merely forming a group on Telegram to discuss legitimate demands cannot be considered a criminal conspiracy. The right to voice grievances is fundamental in a democratic society.”
The Court underscored that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the actions of the petitioners had a direct impact on public order or state security, which is necessary to invoke Section 505 of the IPC. The judge highlighted that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be curtailed unless there is a substantial threat to public order or state security.
Significant Observations from the Judgment
– The Court found no credible evidence of criminal intent or conspiracy, noting that “the essential ingredients of a criminal conspiracy are missing.”
– Justice Suthar condemned the filing of multiple FIRs for the same alleged act, calling it an abuse of the legal process, and cited Supreme Court precedents from Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and N.V. Sharma vs. Union of India.
– The Court also clarified that discussing police grievances on Telegram did not amount to spreading panic under Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, as no false alarms or warnings were made.
Justice Suthar dismissed the allegations, stating that merely forming a group on Telegram to discuss police pay hikes does not constitute a criminal conspiracy. The Court emphasized that there was no evidence of any malicious intent or actions by the petitioners to incite disaffection among police personnel or create public panic.
