Press, social media have done exceptional job in helping Govt, needy citizens during COVID-19 pandemic: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently commended the press and social media for their stellar role in aiding the government and needy citizens during the Covid-19 pandemic (Amit Ghai v. State of Punjab)..The High Court said that the fourth pillar has "done exceptionally commendable job" in the hour of crisis. "It is universally accepted fact that Press (including Print and Electronic media) has now become the fourth pillar of democracy, which can change the mindset of the citizens regarding hate crime in the society. Even in the present COVID-19 pandemic situation, this fourth pillar has done exceptionally commendable job in extending help to both, Government as well as needy citizens," the Court observed in its order. .Even social media was doing a great job in reaching out to citizens who were in urgent need of help and all the citizens, whether known or unknown, were extending help to each other, the Court added. .The observations were made by Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan in an order passed on a plea seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 295-A, 298, 153-A, 153-B, 505, 149, 124-A and 120-B of the IPC..The First Information Report was registered at the instance of Inspector Daljit Singh, who saw a viral video on social media, in which co-accused Nishant Sharma, President of Shiv Sena Hind along with petitioner Amit Ghai, Advocate, Youth National President and Arvind Gautham, President Punjab Wing and many others had convened a conference, wherein certain derogatory remarks were made about Nihang Sikhs..Advocate PL Singla, appearing for the petitioner argued that although the accused had already surrendered, the said video clip was uploaded on social media, by Ajit Singh Buland, who is the Chief Editor of Punjab Kesari TV, and was edited in a manner that it gave a one sided version..He further argued that the conversation between the accused and the said journalist was not intended to hurt the religious sentiments of any community..The petitioner added that if the video was not uploaded online, it would have remained a private affair among the members, who were the followers of Shiv Sena Hind and had a fundamental right of freedom of speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India..It was further submitted that in case any person was found giving a hate speech, it was the primary duty of a press reporter to first inform the police before posting such details on social media..The High Court noted the arguments and observed that while the media has played a stellar role, there exists a "micro percentage" of media who are responsible for airing sensational news. "The followers of this school of thought believe that they are above law and will go uncondemned from the process of law", the Court added..In this regard, Justice Sangwan relied on The Law Commission of India's 267th report on 'Hate Speeches', wherein it recommended to add more stringent provisions by amending the Indian Penal Code..The State counsel submitted that the investigating team is not averse to investigate the case in a manner as to whether the reporter was a perpetuator or catalyst of the crime in view of the provisions of IPC invoked in the FIR..The Director/Additional Director, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab was, therefore, directed by the Court to look into the investigation as well as the role of Ajit Singh Buland, who had uploaded the video clip on social media and file a specific affidavit on the following points: (i) whether a press reporter, being a citizen, on coming to know that an offence is committed, is bound to inform the police before airing such information. (ii) whether aforesaid press reporter himself was an instrument in perpetuation of the crime as uploading a video clip on social media or electronic media may amount to promoting disharmony or feeling of hatred etc. (iii) whether the original video recording as such can be termed as a hate speech. (iv) whether the edited video clip, with his comments as catalyst, amounts to hate speech.With these observations, the Court went on to grant interim bail to the petitioner subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer..The matter will be heard again on May 25..[Read Order]