Supreme Court stays Kerala HC ban on activist Rehana Fathima sharing views on media
[ad_1]
Top courtroom, nevertheless, retains bail situation that she should not damage non secular emotions
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a blanket ban imposed by the Kerala High Court on activist Rehana Fathima utilizing any sort of media to precise or share her views.
However, a Bench led by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman retained a situation imposed by the High Court that Ms. Fathima mustn’t use the media to harm non secular emotions.
The December 2018 and November 2020 orders of the High Court involved bail granted to Ms. Fathima in a case of committing “deliberate and malicious acts” to harm non secular emotions below Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
The case was registered by the Kerala police towards Ms. Fathima for her Facebook posts regarding the prime courtroom’s judgment within the Sabarimala difficulty permitting girls in a sure age bracket entry into the famed temple.
On December 14, 2018, the Kerala High Court allowed Ms. Fathima bail on the grounds that “she shall not directly or indirectly or through any other person, through print, visual or other electronic media make, share, forward, disseminate or propagate any comment which may affect or has the propensity to affect the religious feelings or sentiments of any community or group of society”.
However, on November 23 final 12 months, the High Court went a step additional so as to add that “till the trial is over accused shall not directly, indirectly or through any other person publish, transmit, share, upload or disseminate or publish any material or any of her comments through any visual and electronic media open to the public”.
“It is a complete gag,” Justice Nariman remarked to senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, showing for Ms. Fathima.
Ms. Fathima mentioned the November 23 bail situation was unreasonable and imposed on her a complete prohibition on the usage of any visible and digital media.
“They are not reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2) of the Constitution… The bail conditions are not only unreasonable, but also disproportionate and arbitrary and therefore deprives the petitioner of her right to free speech and livelihood,” the petition mentioned.
It referred to previous Supreme Court judgments that had held that “conditions for bail imposed by the court should be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, oversee the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice”.