The Patna High Court has set aside the charge sheet filed and cognizance taken against Nityanand Roy, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, Government of India, for offences under Section 153 of the IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Nityanand Roy preferred a Petition before the Patna High Court under Section 482 CrPC in relation to the case registered against him pursuant to a public speech given by him, which was allegedly in violation of the Model Code of Conduct.

The Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha observed, “the written information nowhere discloses that any hatred speech was given in the name of religion, caste etc…There is no harm to any religious sentiment to any particular community. Admittedly, no illegal act was done by the petitioner. Mere showing an apprehension that in case the candidate of a particular party will win the election may create the base of ISIS (a militant outfit) in Araria, district of Bihar, cannot be said that the speech was Malignant in nature or was wantonly in terms of its dictionary”.

Advocate Naresh Dikshit represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Jharkhandi Upadhyay represented the State.

Brief Facts

A Charge Sheet was filed, and cognizance was taken against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Section 153 of the IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of People Act (R.P. Act). The Petitioner, who was then the President of the Bhartiya Janata Party, Bihar, was accused of giving hate speech in the campus of a High School against the Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD) candidate (Md. Sarfaraz Alam) to the extent that if he wins the election, Araria district will become the centre of ISIS.

Court’s Reasoning

The Patna High Court emphasised the meaning of the words “malignantly” and “wantonly” while referring to Section 153, IPC. It was observed that the word “malignant” bears some more value and constitutes the act having the nature of extreme malevolence or enmity, something violently hostile or harmful.

While the word “wantonly” implies those acts and omissions done in such a manner or under such circumstances as to indicate that a person of ordinary intelligence actuated by normal and natural concern for the welfare and safety of his fellowmen who might be affected by them could not be guilty of them unless wholly indifferent to their probable injurious effect or consequences.

"The written information nowhere discloses that any hatred speech was given in the name of religion, caste etc. The ISIS no doubt is a militant outfit having no connection with any religion. There is no harm to any religious sentiment to any particular community", the Court observed.

The Patna High Court relied on its previous judgement, Kori Vs. State (1952) in which it was held that “if the act is not illegal, however Wanton, however undesirable, however deplorable the act may have been, there could be no offence committed under section 153. Citing example, it was said by this Court that if there is no provision under law which could make the killing of a cow an offence, it is impossible to hold the act of person in killing of cow in the open is an illegal act, although it may have been Wanton and one which was deplorable.”

The Court held that it can be straightway gathered that to make an offence under Section 153, there must be an illegal act.

The Patna High Court held that the Petitioner did not commit any illegal act and observed “the impugned order of cognizance, which is under challenge, does not appear to speak as to suggest how a prima-facie case is made out under sections 153 of the I.P.C. and 125 of the R.P. Act against the petitioner. It seems that same was drawn mechanically.” Accordingly, the Court allows the Petition.

Cause Title: Nityanand Roy V. State Of Bihar

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Naresh Dikshit, Brij Bihari Tiwary

Respondent: Advocate Jharkhandi Upadhyay

Click here to read/download judgment


Patna High CourtJustice Chandra Shekhar Jha

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.