<p>It is reassuring that the Supreme Court has quashed an FIR against The Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim for allegedly creating communal disharmony through a Facebook post. She had, in her post, raised the issue of an attack on some non-tribal persons, who were playing basketball in a town in Meghalaya, by a group of local tribal youth.</p>.<p>She drew the attention of Chief Minister Conrad Sangma to the incident, and demanded action against them. It was also pointed out that such attackers are never arrested and punished under the law. Instead, an FIR was filed against her, and she was booked for inciting communal tension. The Meghalaya High Court refused to quash the complaint and ruled that investigation agencies should be given a free hand to probe the matter.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court, quashing the FIR, said that “free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases”. It found no hate speech in Mukhim’s Facebook post but a call for equality of all citizens. The court pointed out that India is a plural and multi-cultural society and the Constitution grants all citizens the right to free speech, to travel freely and settle throughout the length and breadth of the country.</p>.<p>The law is equal for everyone, and criminals have no community. Some of these ideas have come under pressure in the country in recent times and that is why their reiteration is necessary and important. The court has repeatedly had to assert these ideas which in the normal course would not call for a special mention in a democracy where the rule of law exists and which is governed by a Constitution that gives equal rights to all citizens. </p>.<p>The case has highlighted four issues. One is the intolerance of some people for others, based on race, language, place of birth etc. The second is the reluctance of governments to take action in instances of such intolerance, especially when vested interests are involved. The third is the tendency to view the demand for justice in such cases as acts of mischief and attempts to create social or communal disharmony.</p>.<p>The fourth is the failure of even the courts, in this case the Meghalaya HC, to judge such issues in terms of the basic tenets and principles of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has struck the right note on these issues and underlined the importance of the rights of citizens and values like justice and fairness. The ruling is also a reminder to governments and law courts of their responsibility to respect and uphold those rights and values.</p>
<p>It is reassuring that the Supreme Court has quashed an FIR against The Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim for allegedly creating communal disharmony through a Facebook post. She had, in her post, raised the issue of an attack on some non-tribal persons, who were playing basketball in a town in Meghalaya, by a group of local tribal youth.</p>.<p>She drew the attention of Chief Minister Conrad Sangma to the incident, and demanded action against them. It was also pointed out that such attackers are never arrested and punished under the law. Instead, an FIR was filed against her, and she was booked for inciting communal tension. The Meghalaya High Court refused to quash the complaint and ruled that investigation agencies should be given a free hand to probe the matter.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court, quashing the FIR, said that “free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases”. It found no hate speech in Mukhim’s Facebook post but a call for equality of all citizens. The court pointed out that India is a plural and multi-cultural society and the Constitution grants all citizens the right to free speech, to travel freely and settle throughout the length and breadth of the country.</p>.<p>The law is equal for everyone, and criminals have no community. Some of these ideas have come under pressure in the country in recent times and that is why their reiteration is necessary and important. The court has repeatedly had to assert these ideas which in the normal course would not call for a special mention in a democracy where the rule of law exists and which is governed by a Constitution that gives equal rights to all citizens. </p>.<p>The case has highlighted four issues. One is the intolerance of some people for others, based on race, language, place of birth etc. The second is the reluctance of governments to take action in instances of such intolerance, especially when vested interests are involved. The third is the tendency to view the demand for justice in such cases as acts of mischief and attempts to create social or communal disharmony.</p>.<p>The fourth is the failure of even the courts, in this case the Meghalaya HC, to judge such issues in terms of the basic tenets and principles of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has struck the right note on these issues and underlined the importance of the rights of citizens and values like justice and fairness. The ruling is also a reminder to governments and law courts of their responsibility to respect and uphold those rights and values.</p>