Supreme Court orders for the immediate release of Journalist, Prashant Kanojia.
Today in the hearing of Uttar Pradesh versus Journalist Prashant Kanojia, SC asked on but factors was Mr. Kanojia imprisoned.
After hearing the case of freelance journalist Prashant Kanojia, who was arrested by the UP police under the orders of UP Government for posting on facebook and twitter, the court asked to release him immediately.
Supreme Court questioned the prosecution on what basis was Mr. Kanojia sent behind the bars.
"Under what provision has he been arrested for this?"
Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi were the justices of the bench for this case, who took the case into immediate consideration, as reading the plea which said that the arrest was "illegal and unconstitutional" by the accused's wife Jagisha Arora, who was represented by Nitya Ramakrishnan.
The Supreme Court asked,
"A citizen's right to liberty has been infringed. We have gone through the records. Opinions may vary. This sort of thing should not have been published. But why arrest?"
An FIR was lodged against the accused in the Hazratganj Police station in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The FIR said that he posted a video on twitter and facebook of a woman speaking to various different media organizations outside CM's office. The woman was recorded saying that she wants to get married to Adityanath Yogi, and has also sent him a marriage proposal.
Once the court sanctioned the liberty of Mr. Kanojia, UP Government countered his bail application. They also argued that this trial should first be taken to the High Court, as this is the highest authority to be entertaining such cases.
To whose reply the bench condemned by saying
"Have you ever some across remand for 11 days in such a case? Sit behind the bars day after day and challenge the order? That is not a very fair stand."
The SC also said that they do not appreciate the tweets made by Prashant Kanojia, but they can not be
solely used to apprehend him.
''It is made clear that this order is not to be construed as an approval of the tweets on social media. We only deprecate the severeness of the action," the court said.
UP Government again argued saying that they have been following accused's twitter activities, and it is observed that he has been posting content which is against God and religion.
''We need not comment on the nature of the posts/tweets for which the action has been taken. The question is whether the petitioner's husband ought to have been deprived of his liberty. The answer to that is prima facie in the negative. We find that the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and particularly under Articles 19 and 21 are non-negotiable ", said the Supreme Court