Court cannot teach ethics to people: Madras High Court quashes criminal defamation case for cartoon published on Facebook

Court cannot teach ethics to people, the Madras High Court recently observed as it quashed a criminal defamation case against a person who had published a cartoon on his Facebook page (Balamurugan v. State). .Justice G Ilangovan said that the action of the petitioner did not involve any criminality though it might have been unethical. "But the Court cannot teach the ethicality (sic) to the people and it is for the Society to evolve and follow the ethical standards," the Court underscored. .The petitioner in the case, Balamurugan, had published a cartoon on his personal Facebook page regarding a self-immolation incident that took place outside the District Collector’s office in Tirunelveli in 2017.The cartoon portrayed the burning body of a baby with three nude figures, the District Collector, the Superintendent of Police and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu watching the same, their private parts covered with currency notes..The District Collector preferred a complaint against Balamurugan deeming the cartoon to be obscene, insulting and defamatory. Based on the same, a case was registered for offences punishable under Section 501 of Indian Penal Code (criminal defamation) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form). The accused preferred a petition before the High Court to quash the First Information Report (FIR). .The Court said that the question for consideration was "from where the fundamental rights of freedom of thought and expression must begin and where it must end.""In a democratic country, freedom of thought, expression and speech are the foundations upon which democracy survives, without which there can be no democracy and therefore, no evolution of the human society,” the Court observed. It noted that in the instant case, the petitioner wanted to express his anger, grief and criticism regarding the inability of the administration, both executive and police, in containing the collection of exorbitant interest by money lenders. "Three lives were lost in the premises of the collectorate over the demand of exorbitant interest by a money lender. The problem pertains not with reference to the grief, criticism or the social interest which the petitioner wanted to explain and create an awareness in the mind of the people, but the manner in which it was expressed becomes controversy. Depicting the officials right from the head of the executive down to the District Police in that form created the controversy," the order said. .While some may feel that the cartoon was an over exaggeration or obscene, others may feel that it conveyed the indifference of authorities in protecting the life of the citizens, the Court observed. Hence, the cartoon could be perceived differently by different persons.Therefore, while the cartoon might have caused feeling of humiliation in the mind of the Collector, the intention of the petitioner was to depict the attitude of authorities regarding the demand of exorbitant interest by the money lenders. .There was no intention on the part of the petitioner to defame the Collector, the Court concluded. "Continuing the investigation against the petitioner will make no purpose. In my considered opinion, no criminality is involved in the cartoon and so, the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed," the Court ruled. .Advocate S Vanchinathan appeared for the petitioner while Government Advocate M Ganesan appeared for the State. .[Read Order]