The Supreme Court has disposed of the pleas of BJP leader Prashant Umrao, who faced allegations of disseminating false information regarding attacks on migrant workers in Tamil Nadu. The apex court’s decision came after it was informed that only one FIR had been filed against Umrao in the state, rendering his writ petition for the clubbing of multiple FIRs moot.
A bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Pankaj Mithal, was overseeing two petitions filed by Umrao. One was a writ petition seeking the consolidation of complaints registered against him in different police stations over his tweet, and the other was a special leave petition against a condition set by the Madras High Court during his anticipatory bail grant.
Previously, the court had expressed its displeasure over the incorrect information Umrao allegedly shared on social media. The bench had remarked,
“In the hallowed halls of justice, the essence of a fair and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial calm. It is incumbent upon a judge to exude an aura of tranquillity, offering a sanctuary of reason and measured deliberation.”
Tamil Nadu’s Additional Advocate General, Amit Anand Tiwari, informed the court that the state government’s counter-affidavit assured that only one FIR had been filed against Umrao. He added,
“Let him avail whatever remedy available to him if he wants to challenge the FIR. My instruction is that the investigation is complete and the final report will be filed.”
Umrao’s counsel apprised the court that the BJP spokesperson had complied with previous court orders by appearing before the investigating officer. The court subsequently modified the condition imposed by the high court, which required Umrao to appear before the Tamil Nadu police daily for 15 days.
Justice Gavai pronounced,
“Additional Advocate General for State of Tamil Nadu states that only one FIR is filed against the petitioner. In view of this, WP 143/2023 does not survive and as such is disposed of. Insofar as CA 4351/203 is concerned…Mr Tiwari states that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is to be filed. In view of this, the special leave petition is made absolute in terms of the interim order dated April 6.”
Earlier this year, videos allegedly showcasing migrant workers being attacked in Tamil Nadu had surfaced on social media. These were later debunked as fake by fact-checkers and the state police department. Umrao was subsequently booked by the Thoothukudi Central police for allegedly spreading this misinformation. He was granted anticipatory bail by the Madras High Court, but with a condition that he appear before the investigating officer daily for a period of 15 days. This condition was later challenged in the Supreme Court.
Umrao, in his defense, contended that he had only retweeted stories published by private news channels and had promptly deleted the tweets upon realizing the news was unconfirmed. He also alleged being a victim of ‘political vendetta’ and stated,
“I do not support any discrimination on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, or language. I was made a victim because of an opposite political ideology.”
The Madras High Court, while commenting on the matter, noted that Umrao, being an advocate and a member of a national political party, should have been more responsible. The court remarked,
“He must have some responsibility over society. Before tweeting or forwarding Twitter messages, he must think about the consequences of the said messages and the genuineness of the said messages.”
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of responsible information dissemination, especially in the age of social media.
