The event involved a sermon by Jain Saint Shri Tarun Sagar, which was delivered unclothed as per Jain traditions. The criticism by Poonawalla and Dadlani, made in a podcast shared on Twitter, allegedly hurt the religious sentiments of the Jain community.
NEW DELHI: Today, 8th April: The Supreme Court set aside the costs that had earlier been imposed on musician Vishal Dadlani and political activist Tehseen Poonawalla for their 2016 tweets that mocked a Jain monk.
A bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the order while hearing an appeal filed by Tehseen Poonawalla challenging a 2019 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
BRIEF FACTS:
A case was filed against Tehseen Poonawalla and Vishal Dadlani at Ambala Police Station in Haryana after they criticized an event in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha held on 26 August 2016.
The event involved a sermon by Jain Saint Shri Tarun Sagar, which was delivered unclothed as per Jain traditions. The criticism by Poonawalla and Dadlani, made in a podcast shared on Twitter, allegedly hurt the religious sentiments of the Jain community.
A petition was filed in the High Court seeking cancellation of the FIR, which contained allegations against both Poonawalla and Dadlani. The High Court accepted that no offence was committed by them and quashed the FIR.
However, the High Court had also ordered both petitioners to pay a significant amount as penalty, despite clearing them of all charges. This part of the judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court criticised the High Court’s cost order, especially since it was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners.
The Supreme Court remarked:
“No notice was given. So, what kind of order has been made?”
The Bench further observed:
“The court should not act as a moral authority. That is not the court’s job.”
The Supreme Court took note that:
- The High Court had protected the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression of the appellants.
- The respondents had not challenged the part of the judgment that said no offence was committed.
- Therefore, there was no valid reason to impose costs on Poonawalla and Dadlani.
The Supreme Court emphasized:
“Once it was decided that no offence was committed, there was no reason to impose any costs on the appellant or the other petitioner.”
The Bench also said:
“The High Court should have applied the rule that the losing party must pay the legal costs.”
In this context, it pointed out:
“In this case, costs should have been charged to the respondent.”
The Supreme Court believed the High Court might have been swayed by the religious angle:
“It seems the High Court may have been influenced by the fact that the appellant and the other accused had criticized a priest from a certain religion.”
The judgment firmly added:
“We believe that once the High Court found that no crime was committed at all, it should not have used its advisory powers to suggest that the priest’s contribution to society was greater than that of the appellant and the other accused.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Petition Seeks Action Against Owaisi; Plea Filed by Hindu Sena
Lastly, the apex court stressed:
“The court’s job is not to judge people’s morals.”
The Supreme Court cancelled the cost order imposed on Tehseen Poonawalla and Vishal Dadlani and allowed the appeal.
“So, we cancel the part of the judgment that told the appellant and the other accused to pay costs. The appeal is allowed.”
Case Title: Tehseen Poonawalla vs. State of Haryana
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
