The Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Janata Party’s Prashant Umrao was criticised by the Supreme Court on Thursday for spreading false information on Twitter about purported attacks on Bihari workers in Tamil Nadu.
The Court requested that Patel apologise for spreading false information, remarking that he ought to be more responsible, particularly as a lawyer. A writ petition for the clubbing of the first information reports (FIRs) registered against him in different police stations over the tweet was being heard by a bench made up of Justices BR Gavai and Pankaj Mithal. The petition was also a special leave petition against the condition the Madras High Court placed on the anticipatory bail granted to the advocate and BJP leader. The Madras High Court’s requirement that he appear before the police for 15 days was reduced by the bench, which also gave notice on the writ petition.
In addition, the top court issued an ad interim judgement stating that any additional FIRs filed in the state of Tamil Nadu pertaining to the same cause of action will be subject to the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, the state’s attorney, informed the bench that Prashant is not listed as an accused party in the other FIRs. Patel’s senior attorney Siddharth Luthra informed the bench that the defendant had just tweeted information that had previously been broadcast by other media outlets. “He tweeted,” he declared. There was a mistake. He erased the tweet after realising that. There are currently numerous first information complaints of the young man being harassed.
“Why should we be so sensitive these days?” Justice Gavai exclaimed. The bail restriction set by the high court surprised the Supreme Court justice as well. Justice Gavai questioned, “What investigation are you conducting for five hours each day for 15 days?”
Senior attorney Mukul Rohatgi, who was representing the state police, refused to acknowledge that the circumstance in question was problematic. The senior attorney contended that it was simply there for questioning. He further noted that the BJP spokesperson had neither gone before the police or presented an affidavit promising not to tweet anything that might incite animosity amongst various groups. He should at least abide by the other requirements, the senior counsel added.
Why was the affidavit not filed until today? Additionally, he said that his tweet was reckless and had negative repercussions. Observe his tweet. He practises law. According to a lawyer, Tamil Nadu is home to attacks on Hindi-speakers. To say that as a lawyer…
What is his status in the bar, the judge enquired? The bench was informed that Patel has been a member of the Bar for seven years and is currently working as a standing attorney for Goa. Justice Gavai remarked, “He should be more responsible,” and he urged the troubled attorney to apologise before the next scheduled hearing.
On February 23, Umrao claimed in a tweet that 15 migrant labourers had been attacked for speaking Hindi, and 12 of them had died. Videos of migrant labourers who were allegedly attacked in Tamil Nadu were circulated on social media last month. They first caused widespread alarm before being exposed as false by fact-checkers and the state police department.
The Thoothukudi Central police allegedly charged Patel with violating Sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to incite unrest), 153A (promoting hostility between different groups), 504 (intentional insult to induce breach of peace), and 505 for allegedly circulating false information. (Statements conducing to public mischief). A Madras High Court single judge granted him anticipatory bail, but Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan ordered him to attend daily for 15 days before the investigating officer. The SLP submitted to the Supreme Court challenges this condition.
Patel was also only given anticipatory bail after swearing under oath before the jurisdictional magistrate that he would refrain from tweeting or forwarding any message that would incite animosity between various groups on the basis of race, religion, place of birth, residence, language, etc. The BJP spokesperson claimed, among other things, that he had solely reposted news articles from private news outlets. Additionally, he informed the solitary judge that he had immediately removed the tweets after learning the report was untrue.
Patel also claimed before the state high court that he was a victim of “political vendetta”. I do not condone any discrimination based on religion, race, location of birth, or language, Patel had also tweeted. Because of an opposing political perspective, I became the victim.
The high court judge said Patel, who is an advocate and a member of a major political party, should have considered the effects of his tweets before posting them, noting that they resulted in a “sorry state of affairs.” It is a regrettable situation because the petitioner is an advocate and is actively involved in a national political party, the author noted. He must bear some obligation to the community. He should consider the implications of tweeting or forwarded Twitter messages as well as their veracity before doing so.
Patel said in the writ case against the Madras High Court’s judgment, which was also considered concurrently with the special leave plea, that numerous complaints had been filed regarding the exact same tweets he had written.
SUBMITTED BY NEHA A. PARDESHI ON 7th APRIL, 2023
