**Supreme Court Rules Against Moral Policing in Social Media Case**
The Supreme Court has clarified that the functions of a court do not include moral policing, as it overturned a previous ruling that imposed significant costs on political analyst Tehseen Poonawalla. This decision relates to a series of social media posts made by Poonawalla in 2016, which criticized a Jain monk.
A division bench led by Justice Abhay Oka issued the ruling in response to Poonawalla’s appeal against a 2019 order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had imposed what was described as an “exorbitant” fine. The High Court’s earlier judgment suggested that a heavy penalty would deter Poonawalla and co-accused singer Vishal Dadlani from ridiculing religious leaders for publicity on platforms like Twitter, while also canceling the FIR filed against them.
In its recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that since it had already been determined that no offense had occurred, the High Court should not have exercised its advisory jurisdiction by commenting on the societal contributions of the priest in comparison to those of the accused. The bench remarked, “The function of the court is not to do moral policing,” highlighting the inappropriate nature of the High Court’s comments.
The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court may have been swayed by the fact that the criticism was aimed at a religious figure. The FIR against Poonawalla and others, which included charges under Sections 295-A (outraging religious feelings), 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), and 509 (insulting a woman’s modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 66E of the IT Act (violating privacy), was ultimately canceled. The High Court had previously imposed a penalty of Rs 10 lakh each on the accused, asserting that it was intended to prevent future instances of mocking religious leaders for social media attention.
Poonawalla defended his actions, stating that he merely expressed his personal views and that criminal law should not penalize individuals for unpopular opinions—a principle supported by numerous Supreme Court judgments. Arguments presented to the Supreme Court indicated that the High Court’s ruling failed to recognize that the case was based on fabricated allegations, with no evidence of legal or physical harm to any individual or property.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of free expression and the limitations of judicial authority in matters of personal opinion, particularly in the context of social media discourse.
**FAQ**
**Q: What was the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Tehseen Poonawalla’s case?**
A: The Supreme Court ruled that courts should not engage in moral policing and overturned a previous order imposing costs on Poonawalla for his social media posts, emphasizing the importance of free expression.
