Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on “freedom of speech and expression”  (2014), and A man is but the product of his thoughts. What he thinks he becomes.” — M.K. Gandhi (2019).

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh imposed strict conditions, barring Allahbadia and his team from posting on social media until further notice and ordering him to surrender his passport to the police. These conditions go against previous Supreme Court rulings that warn against imposing excessive restrictions that limit personal freedom while granting temporary relief.

Today’s editorial discusses temporary protection from arrest and the factors the Supreme Court considers when granting interim relief to an accused. This information is valuable for GS Paper 2 and 4 in the UPSC Mains examination.

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

On February 18, the Supreme Court granted temporary protection from arrest to podcaster and influencer Ranveer Allahbadia.

What stringent conditions did the Supreme Court impose on podcaster and influencer Ranveer Allahbadia? 

• Prohibition on Social Media Activity: The Court barred Allahbadia and his associates from posting any content on YouTube or other audio/video platforms until further orders. Example: Similar restrictions were rejected in Mohammed Zubair’s case (2021), where the Court held that preventing social media activity violates free speech rights.
• Surrender of Passport: He was directed to surrender his passport to the police to prevent him from leaving the country. Example: In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the Court ruled that conditions like passport surrender must not be disproportionate or impossible to comply with.
• Gag Order on Professional Work: The Court imposed a gag order restricting him from airing new content until further notice. Example: In Rehana Fathima’s case (2021), the Supreme Court overturned a similar order that restricted the activist from expressing her views online.
• Monitoring of Public Statements: Allahbadia’s public statements and activities on digital platforms are subject to strict oversight to prevent further controversies. Example: In Frank Vitus v. NCB (2024), the Court struck down a bail condition requiring the accused to share their Google Maps location PIN, calling it an invasion of privacy.
• Single Investigation for Multiple FIRs: The Court may consolidate the multiple FIRs against him under a single investigation to prevent harassment. Example: In Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan (2022), the Supreme Court denounced the filing of multiple FIRs for the same offense as a form of state harassment.

What factors does the top court consider when granting interim relief to an accused? 

• Tampering with Evidence (Interfering with Investigation): The Court considers whether interim relief might allow the accused to destroy, fabricate, or conceal evidence. Example: In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the Court cautioned against imposing impossible bail conditions while ensuring the investigation remains uncompromised.
• Nature and Gravity of the Offense: The seriousness of the alleged crime and its potential social impact are weighed when deciding on interim relief. Example: In Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020), interim bail was granted, with the Court emphasizing the need to prevent misuse of the law for political harassment.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Court considers the accused’s fundamental rights, particularly personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Example: In Frank Vitus v. NCB (2024), the Court struck down a bail condition requiring the accused to share their Google Maps location PIN, calling it a violation of privacy rights.
• Flight Risk (Likelihood of Absconding): The Court evaluates whether the accused is likely to flee the country or jurisdiction to evade legal proceedings. Example: In Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), anticipatory bail was denied due to concerns about flight risk and the accused’s ability to influence the investigation.
• Intimidation of Witnesses (Influencing or Threatening Witnesses): The possibility of the accused threatening, influencing, or coercing witnesses is assessed to ensure a fair trial. Example: In State of Gujarat v. Amit Shah (2010), bail was granted after the Court found no direct evidence suggesting that the accused would intimidate witnesses.

What has the Court previously stated about gag orders?

• Gag Orders Violate Freedom of Speech: The Court has consistently held that gag orders restricting speech violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Example: In Mohammed Zubair v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the Court refused to restrict Zubair from tweeting while on bail, stating it would create a chilling effect on free speech.
• Prior Restraint is Constitutionally Disfavored: The Court has cautioned that prior restraint—preventing speech before it occurs—is unconstitutional except in exceptional circumstances like public order or national security. Example: In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Court ruled that prior censorship is permissible only when there is compelling public interest.
• Gag Orders Must Be Proportional: Any restriction on speech must be narrowly tailored and proportionate to the harm being prevented. Broad, vague restrictions are unconstitutional. Example: In Rehana Fathima v. State of Kerala (2021), the Court struck down a bail condition prohibiting Fathima from expressing her views on social media, calling it disproportionate.
• Right to Practice a Profession: Gag orders must not prevent individuals from pursuing their profession, especially when their work depends on public communication. Example: In Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021), the Court quashed FIRs against journalist Vinod Dua, stating that his journalistic work was protected under Article 19(1)(a).
• Interference with Judicial Process is an Exception: The Court has upheld gag orders only when speech could obstruct the judicial process or prejudice a fair trial. Example: In Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI (2012), the Court allowed temporary restrictions to prevent media trials from affecting the outcome of legal proceedings.

Way forward: 

• Balance Fundamental Rights with Fair Trial: Ensure that any restrictions on speech, including gag orders, are narrow, proportionate, and imposed only when necessary to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings while safeguarding freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• Establish Clear Guidelines for Interim Relief: Formulate uniform guidelines to regulate conditions like passport surrender, social media bans, and public statement monitoring, ensuring they are consistent with constitutional protections and do not impose disproportionate burdens on the accused.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now