The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against Althaf Hussain Yane Althaf Moosa, who was accused of circulating audio clips on WhatsApp that allegedly spread misinformation and criticised the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner faced charges under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and 505(2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while dismissing the plea, held that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner, and the matter deserved to go to trial. The Court observed that the content of the audio messages could potentially disturb communal harmony and create panic among the public during a highly sensitive period. It noted that the right to free speech cannot be exercised in a manner that incites public disorder or spreads fear, especially in times of public health emergencies.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner circulated audio clips alleging that COVID-19 patients were being forcibly treated in government hospitals and that an amount of ₹40,000 was being collected from patients under false pretenses. These messages, it was claimed, targeted a local MLA and were capable of spreading misinformation and communal tension.
In his defense, the petitioner argued that the allegations, even if assumed to be true, did not amount to the offences under which he was charged. He further contended that his actions were protected under the right to freedom of expression and that the continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to harassment and misuse of law.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments, pointing out that the charge-sheet and forensic evidence established a prima facie link between the petitioner and the audio recordings. Justice Magadum stated that the content of the messages warranted judicial scrutiny in a full-fledged trial, as they could influence public sentiment and potentially disrupt social harmony.
The Court emphasised that while citizens are free to criticise the government, spreading unverified and inflammatory information during a public crisis cannot be condoned. It also noted that courts must be cautious in interfering with ongoing investigations, particularly in cases that concern public peace and safety.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the trial to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s stance that freedom of expression carries corresponding responsibilities, and misuse of digital platforms during emergencies can attract legal consequences.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.