Advocate Aadesh Bansode faces an FIR in Maharashtra for sharing a video criticizing PM Modi during the Lok Sabha elections, prompted by a complaint from lawyer Jayant Walinjkar, spotlighting the complexities of free speech and legal accountability in digital politics.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Maharashtra: Recently, An FIR was lodged against Advocate Aadesh Bansode in Maharashtra for allegedly sharing a controversial video by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee. The video in question criticized Prime Minister Narendra Modi and was shared around the fifth phase of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.
Background:
The FIR was registered by the Mira Bhayander Vasai Virar (MBVV) Police following a letter from another lawyer, Jayant Walinjkar. Walinjkar’s complaint was based on the circulation of Rathee’s video titled “Mind of Dictator” within a WhatsApp group of the Vasai court Bar Association, where both he and Bansode are members.
Walinjkar reported to the police that Advocate Bansode shared the video on May 20, accompanied by the message:
“Do watch this video before going to cast your votes.”
This message was seen as an attempt to influence the voting decisions of the group members, who are primarily legal professionals.
Upon receiving the complaint, the MBVV Police took swift action. The head constable of the MBVV secret branch noted that both Rathee’s video and Bansode’s accompanying message seemed to be an effort to sway voters. The FIR was registered based on this perception of voter influence.
“The head constable of the MBVV secret branch mentioned that Rathee’s video and Bansode’s message aimed to influence voters.”
-a police source stated.
ALSO READ: “Made Error” by retweeting video: Delhi CM Kejriwal tells SC in defamation case
The registration of the FIR against Advocate Bansode has raised several legal and ethical questions. It touches upon the freedom of speech and expression, especially in the context of sharing opinions and critiques of political figures during election periods. This incident also highlights the growing scrutiny of social media activities by law enforcement agencies.
Legal experts are divided on the issue. Some argue that sharing a video with a personal opinion does not necessarily constitute a criminal act, while others emphasize the potential impact such messages can have on the electoral process.
The legal community and the public have shown mixed reactions to this case. Members of the Vasai court Bar Association have expressed their concerns over the FIR, suggesting that it could set a precedent for restricting free speech among legal professionals.
One member of the Bar Association commented-
“We must thoroughly contemplate the ramifications of this FIR. While safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process is paramount, we must also uphold our fundamental right to freedom of speech.”
This incident is part of a larger trend where social media content and its influence on public opinion are being closely monitored during elections. It raises questions about the boundaries between free expression and unlawful influence.
Dhruv Rathee, known for his critical videos on various political issues, has a significant following on social media. His content often sparks debate and discussion, and this case underscores the potential legal consequences of sharing such content.
“The video shared by the accused, along with Bansode’s accompanying message, contains false statements about Lok Sabha election candidates and attempts to influence voters, thereby contravening the prohibitory orders issued by the police commissioner.”
– stated the First Information Report (FIR).
This matter occurs amidst the implementation of restrictive directives by the police commissioner for MBVV, with the objective of facilitating the orderly execution of the general elections within his domain. These directives were instituted to uphold the credibility of the electoral procedure and deter any endeavors to unfairly sway voters.
The dissemination of misinformation, especially during election periods, poses a significant threat to the democratic process. With voters relying on accurate information to make informed decisions, any attempt to spread falsehoods can undermine the foundation of democracy.
Authorities have reiterated their commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that individuals found violating prohibitory orders or engaging in activities aimed at manipulating the electoral process face appropriate legal consequences. Investigations are underway to identify all parties involved in the creation and dissemination of the controversial video.
In response to the incident, community leaders and political representatives have called for greater vigilance against the spread of misinformation, emphasizing the need for media literacy and responsible online behavior.
