Meghalaya High Court refuses to quash criminal case against journalist for Facebook post condemning violence against non-tribal people

The Meghalaya High Court has declined to quash a criminal case against Shillong based-journalist, Patricia Mukhim, for her Facebook post decrying violence against non-tribal people in the State. (Patricia Mukhim Vs. State of Meghalaya & 4 Ors.).A Single Bench of Justice W Diengdoh opined in the order that, prima facie, the offence of mischief under Section 153A, IPC had been made out against Mukhim as her post "apparently seeks to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between two communities."."...what can be deduced is that there is an attempt to make a comparison between tribals and non-tribals vis-à-vis their rights and security and the alleged tipping of the balance in favour of one community over the other..."Meghalaya High Court.In July, Patricia Mukhim had described Meghalaya as a failed State because of continued attacks on non-tribal people. Her post stated that the attackers and trouble-mongers have never been arrested since 1979. She also questioned the village council for failing to act on such instances..Her remarks came in the backdrop of violence against boys playing basketball by a group of around 25 youth, supposedly tribals..A case was registered by the Police against her after the Dorbar Shnong (village council) made a complaint against her for inciting communal tensions and for defamation (Sections 153-A, 500, 505 of the Indian Penal Code). After this, she was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. .Seeking relief, the journalist approached the High Court seeking to quash the complaint against her..In proceedings before the Court, Mukhim's Counsel argued that she had only voiced concern about the handling of the assault case by the police and the Dorbar Shnong, and that it will not be another case lost in the police files. .Her counsel also emphasized that imputing an offence under Section 153-A, IPC required mens rea to be demonstrated. Her post being in public interest and in good faith, there was nothing to show such intention, it was submitted..The State on the other hand claimed that she was giving communal colour to what was only a violent clash between two basketball teams and drawing parallels with events from 1979. .Justice W Diengdoh opined that the Facebook post sought to create a divide in the “cordial relationship between the tribal and non-tribal” people living in Meghalaya..The Judge described the post as assuaging "the feelings of the non-tribals by posing a question as to why they should live in perpetual fear in their own State when they have a right to call Meghalaya their state as the indigenous tribal does.".In this light, he concluded that the offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code seemed to be prima facie borne out and that she had disturbed the cordial relations between people in the State, while also attributing bias to the State..The Court refused to discuss whether the offence of defamation and statements conducive to public mischief were attracted, but allowed the investigating officers the liberty to investigate these as well.."...the investigating agency is required to be given a free hand to investigate the matter and to come to its own conclusion in due process of law", the Court said..The petition was disposed on these terms..Advocate K Paul appeared for the petitioner and AAG ND Chullai and GA R Colney represented the State..Advocate PL Khongsngi appeared for the Dorbar and its representatives who had filed the complaint against the Mukhim..Read the Order