The Supreme Court of India made a significant decision by granting bail to Afzal Lakhani, a Congress Leader who had been accused of posting controversial content on Facebook. This content included what was described as ‘Anti-Indian’ and ‘Pro-Pakistani’ statements and derogatory remarks aimed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his mother, Hiraba. This decision followed the Gujarat High Court‘s earlier denial of bail, where they emphasized the importance of loyalty to the country among individuals residing in India. The Supreme Court’s ruling was delivered by a bench of two judges, comprising Justice AS Bopanna and Justice MM Sundresh. They granted bail to Lakhani but imposed specific conditions.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision was clear: they considered the High Court’s observations and took into account the fact that the petitioner had expressed regret at a later stage. This regret was seen as a positive development, and the Supreme Court believed it appropriate to offer the petitioner an opportunity to participate effectively in the trial. However, the court also emphasized that, as a condition for granting bail, Lakhani should refrain from posting similar content on social media platforms in the future, whether directly or anonymously. The court’s decision stipulated that the petitioner must comply with all conditions set by the trial court, including the prohibition on posting such content on social media.
Also Read- Karnataka High Court stated that the criteria for approving an investigation into a public servant
Gujarat High Court’s Denial of Bail
In its previous denial of bail, the Gujarat High Court had underscored the significance of loyalty to India for those residing in the country. The court expressed deep concern about the potential impact of the derogatory content on society. While recognizing that individuals may have their personal preferences and opinions, the High Court made it clear that using derogatory and abusive language against the Prime Minister and his late mother was unacceptable. The content in question was considered highly offensive, to the extent that the court chose not to reproduce any of the posts within its order. The High Court further held that Afzal Lakhani, an Indian citizen, had disrupted the peace and harmony of society with his actions.
The posts in question appeared to be driven by a particular agenda, and there was a genuine concern that if Lakhani were released on bail, he might continue to commit similar offenses using pseudonyms and fake identities. Lakhani faced a range of allegations, including the creation of 18 Facebook pages where he posted content targeting the Prime Minister and specific members of a community. Additionally, he was accused of posting pornographic and obscene material on social media platforms.
Also Read- Delhi High Court Restrains Capital TV from Using TV Today’s Trademarks for News Programs
Legal Representation
Siddhant Sharma, an advocate-on-record (AOR), represented Afzal Lakhani in the legal proceedings. On the other side, Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, represented the State of Gujarat. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was informed by a careful consideration of the concerns raised by the Gujarat High Court, the petitioner’s expression of regret, and the imposition of conditions to ensure that similar content would not be posted on social media in the future. The case revolved around allegations of offensive content and derogatory remarks targeting the Prime Minister and a specific community. The High Court’s emphasis on the importance of loyalty to India and the maintenance of peace and harmony in society was central to the case, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s bail decision.