Today(on 3rd July), Calcutta High Court Justice Amrita Sinha orders immediate release of a Howrah youth arrested for ‘slant comments’ on Facebook during CM Mamata Banerjee’s Nabanna meeting. The arrest was based on allegations of supporting water body filling against MLA Arup Roy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: Today(on 3rd July), Calcutta High Court Justice Amrita Sinha has ordered the immediate release of a Howrah youth who was arrested for making allegedly “slant comments” on Facebook. These comments were posted during the live broadcast of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee‘s administrative meeting at Nabanna. The arrest was made on the grounds of alleged support for the filling of water bodies against local MLA and state minister Arup Roy.
Justice Sinha sharply criticized the police for what she described as an overreach and interference with a citizen’s right to free expression.
She stated-
“The police had infringed upon a citizen’s right to freedom of speech.”
Emphasizing the gravity of this overreach, she ordered the release of the arrested individual, Ershad Sultan alias Shaheen, from jail by 5 pm on Wednesday.
Background of the Arrest
According to court sources, Ershad Sultan was arrested by the Shibpur police station in Howrah. The arrest stemmed from comments made during a live broadcast, where Sultan allegedly sent an SMS to the chief minister.
The message supported the filling of water bodies, a contentious issue opposed by local MLA Arup Roy and a local leader of the ruling party. Sultan’s family sought the court’s intervention, questioning the legality of his arrest.
ALSO READ:Allegedly ‘Slapped’ and ‘Threatened’ by TMC MLA Soham Chakraborty: Restaurant Owner Moves Cal HC
During the court proceedings on Tuesday, Justice Sinha granted permission for the detainee’s family to file a case against the arrest. The following day, in a session that saw critical remarks aimed at the police’s actions, Justice Sinha did not hold back in her criticism. She questioned the legal basis for the arrest, highlighting the fundamental rights at stake.
Justice Sinha remarked-
“Will someone be arrested merely for expressing complaints or anger towards another person? Did Arup Ray lodge a complaint against the person who expressed dissent? The police seemed to ignore this incident and refrained from intervening. No action was taken. Is it lawful for the police to arrest one person based on a third-party complaint following a dispute or altercation?”
The judge’s decision and her pointed comments have broader implications for the protection of freedom of speech in India. This case highlights the tensions between law enforcement and individual rights, particularly in the context of political expression and dissent.
Legal experts have hailed the ruling as a reaffirmation of constitutional rights.
“This decision underscores the judiciary’s vital role in protecting individual freedoms from arbitrary state actions.”
-said a senior advocate.
Social activists and free speech advocates have also welcomed the judgment. They see it as a victory for civil liberties and a necessary check on police powers.
One activist commented-
“Justice Sinha’s ruling sends a powerful message that freedom of speech must not be suppressed through unjust arrests.”
In a recent court session that has captured public attention, significant details emerged regarding the arrest of an individual named Shaheen. Amidst claims and counterclaims surrounding the circumstances of his detention, the judicial oversight intensified, highlighting procedural nuances and the quest for transparency in law enforcement practices.
The session opened with the judge inquiring explicitly about the timing and location of Shaheen’s arrest.
The state’s attorney clarified, stating-
“Shaheen was arrested from his residence on June 30th.”
It was noted that despite receiving a prior notice, Shaheen failed to present himself to the authorities, which led to his subsequent arrest directly from his home two days later.
This revelation prompted the judge to issue a direct order aimed at safeguarding potential evidence. He mandated the preservation of the CCTV footage from Shibpur police station on the day of the initial notice.
The judge emphasized the importance of this footage, as the state maintained that –
“Shaheen was arrested from his house.”
This directive was in response to allegations from the abductee’s family suggesting a different sequence of events.
They claimed that-
“After receiving the notice, Shaheen went to the police station and was detained for an extended period.”
before his official arrest was recorded.