Thin-skinned masters: On journalists arrest

Arbitrary arrest for a social media post reflects a disregard for law and liberty

June 12, 2019 12:02 am | Updated December 03, 2021 08:36 am IST

The Supreme Court order granting immediate bail to journalist Prashant Kanojia, arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police for sharing on Twitter a video pertaining to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, was not unexpected. It was obvious that the arrest was arbitrary, unwarranted and without any basis in law. The State government’s attempt to justify its action smacked of perversity and malice. The vacation Bench, comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi, made the right call in ignoring technical objections by counsel for the State government that the apex court should not intervene as only a regular bail petition could secure relief to someone remanded by the jurisdictional magistrate. The Bench did not consider the controversial tweets as sufficient grounds for abridging personal liberty. In observing that the order of release would not amount to an endorsement of Mr. Kanojia’s tweets, the court was only making a minor concession to the police claim that he was making inflammatory comments on social media. It is difficult to believe that at a time when social media networks are full of rampant abuse and distasteful material, the police can be allowed to choose one or two that appear to target political functionaries and incarcerate those airing such views, disregarding well-established norms for arrest and remand. In Mr. Kanojia’s case, defamation, a non-cognisable offence, and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act were cited initially. The latter relates to damaging computer systems, and is inapplicable to a social media post. It was quite clear that there was no case for remand.


There was a more flagrant illegality when Mr. Kanojia was taken out of Delhi without a transit remand from a local magistrate, mandatory when an accused is taken from one State to another. Faced with criticism, the U.P. Police added a section dealing with the offence of causing public mischief and disturbing public tranquillity, besides Section 67 of the IT Act, which relates to sharing of obscene or prurient material, with the motive of obtaining a remand order. A few other journalists have been arrested for discussing the content of the video clip, in which a woman is seen expressing her wish to marry the Chief Minister. What is disquieting, but unsurprising, is the perfunctory attitude of civil servants towards the personal liberty of citizens. It is one thing to pursue violations through legal action, but quite another to lock up people for posts they deem offensive to their political masters and conjure up justifications for their arrest. It is time magistrates who pass mechanical orders without application of mind and officers who carry out illegal instructions from the political leadership are made to face exemplary disciplinary action.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.