The HC had imposed the cost on the duo, saying they had insulted the priest and hurt the sentiments of the followers of the Jain religion.”The court imposed the cost so that in future they may not mock any head of a religious sect for publicity on social media,” HC had said.According to the prosecution, Poonawalla posted a photoshopped image of a semi-nude woman alongside the Jain saint and raised a question about societal standards.They later challenged the imposition of the fine in the Supreme Court.Granting relief to the duo, the top court said the High Court was swayed by the fact that the appellant criticised a priest belonging to a particular religion.The top court, after holding that no offence was made out against them, upheld their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.“We are of the view that after finding that absolutely no offence was made out, when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, High Court ought not to have exercised advisory jurisdiction by telling the appellant (Poonawalla and Dadlani) that the contribution made by the priest was much more than what the appellant and the other accused have contributed. Function of the court is not to do moral policing,” the SC said in the order.
Source link
