Courts not meant for moral policing, says SC

Courts are not tasked with “moral policing” and must refrain from dispensing value-based judgments under the guise of justice, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, scrapping the Punjab and Haryana high court’s 2019 decision to impose a hefty cost of ₹10 lakh each on music composer Vishal Dadlani and political analyst Tehseen Poonawalla for their comments on a Jain monk.

A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the high court’s directive that imposed the fine despite acknowledging that no criminal offence was made out against the two for their social media posts on Jain monk Tarun Sagar.

“The function of the court is not to do moral policing,” the top court held in its order, adding that the high court had clearly upheld the petitioners’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. “After holding that no offence was made out against the appellant, there was no question of imposing cost on the appellant and other petitioner,” the bench ruled.

The Supreme Court said that the high court appeared to have been “swayed” by the fact that the remarks in question were directed at a religious figure. “Perhaps the high court was swayed by the fact that the appellant and the other person arrayed as accused made criticism of a priest of another religion,” the bench noted. It went on to say that the court, after quashing criminal proceedings, ought not to have entered the realm of moral commentary.

The controversy dates back to August 2016, when Dadlani and Poonawalla criticised the Haryana government’s decision to invite Jain monk Muni Tarun Sagar to address the Haryana legislative assembly. The Digambar jain monk wore no clothes as is the norm for monks of the sect. The duo’s comments on Twitter (now X) -- considered satirical by some and offensive by others -- triggered a first information report under Sections 295-A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings), 153-A (promoting enmity), and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case was registered at the Ambala Cantonment police station, and both Dadlani and Poonawalla later approached the Punjab and Haryana high court for quashing the FIR. In May 2019, the high court Justice allowed their petitions, acknowledging that no offence had been made out. Yet, the high court imposed a fine of ₹10 lakh each, framing it as a gesture to “do justice” to the Jain community.

The court cited the “contribution made by Jain Muni Tarun Sagar” and criticised the petitioners for making remarks “without having much to their credit.” The high court wrote: “If the contribution made by the petitioners towards poor people is compared to the contribution made by Jain Muni Tarun Sagar, it is apparent that the petitioners have played a mischief to gain publicity without having much to their credit.” While noting the rising trend of social media provocation and unrest, the high court had said the fines would serve as a deterrent.

The Supreme Court, however, firmly held that such conditional quashing was inappropriate when no offence was found. “After finding that no offence was made out and exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC (quashment of FIR), the high court ought not to have exercised the advisory jurisdiction by telling the appellant that the contribution made by the priest was much more than the appellant and other co-accused in the case,” the bench said.

Setting aside the imposition of costs, the bench re-emphasised that judicial authority must stay within its constitutional boundaries. “We set aside the direction... directing the appellant and other petitioners before the high court to pay cost. The order is set aside,” the court ruled.