“The summon endorses a pattern where all dissenting speech is vilified as objectionable”, which causes “a general shrinking of space for dissent and critique”, the petition by Dr Hausing, argued by senior advocate Anand Grover, had averred.
—
ON Monday, the Supreme Court granted a two-week interim protection from arrest by the Manipur police to Dr Kham Khan Suan Hausing, a professor of political science at the University of Hyderabad.
A three-judge Bench led by the Chief Justice of India Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a petition challenging two criminal proceedings initiated in the state against Dr Hausing.
Delving into the details of the two cases, senior advocate Anand Grover, representing the petitioner, submitted that in the first case, the chief judicial magistrate of Imphal East issued summons against the petitioner on July 6 on the basis of a first information report (FIR) registered against him.
The FIR was lodged under Sections 153A, 200, 295A, 298, 505(i) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for giving an interview to The Wire.
In the second case, another FIR was filed against Dr Hausing on July 10 on the ground that his name had been added to the electoral roll of the Churachandpur assembly constituency in 2005 allegedly using fraudulent means.
Grover further submitted that since the Manipur police did not take action in regard to the second FIR, the chief judicial magistrate in Imphal West directed the police to investigate the complaint under Section 156(3) (police officer’s power to investigate cognisable case) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Grover sought parity with the protection granted to advocate Deeksha Dwivedi. According to Grover, Dr Hausing should be granted protection on the grounds of the ongoing violence in Manipur and the imminent threat to life in appearing before the court in Manipur.
Dr Hausing belong to the Kuki-Zo community. Imphal East and Imphal West police stations as well the High Court of Manipur fall in the Meitei-majority areas of Manipur.
As stated by Indian National Congress Rahul Gandhi in the Parliament recently, it is almost impossible for Meities and Kukis to travel to areas dominated by the other community at present in Manipur.
Dwivedi, along with two others, was booked by the Manipur police on July 8, 2023, under Sections 121A, 124A, 153, 153A, 153B, 499, 504 and 505(2), read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The three accused persons were part of a fact-finding team that went to Manipur to hear individual testimonies of people affected by the violence that has gripped the state.
On July 11, the Bench, comprising the CJI and Justices P.S. Narasimha and Misra, passed an Order granting interim protection from arrest by the Manipur police to Dwivedi.
On July 17, the protection was extended by four weeks to allow Dwivedi to move the Manipur High Court.
In the present case, the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the petition is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Mehta referred to Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others versus State of Maharashtra and Another (1966) and contended that the Order of a competent court cannot be questioned in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
After hearing the arguments, the Bench allowed the petitioner a “breathing space” of two weeks to move the appropriate court (Manipur High Court) to seek the necessary remedies, including anticipatory bail.
The petition
According to the petition, as an academician studying politics and ethnic conflicts in the Northeast, Dr Hausing had expressed his views and opinion in the interview in good faith.
The petition emphasised that the statements made by Dr Hausing are protected by Articles 14, 15, 19(a) and 19(g) of the Constitution.
“[The summon] endorses a pattern where all dissenting speech is vilified as objectionable”, which causes “a general shrinking of space for dissent and critique”, the petition said.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amish Devgan versus Union of India (2021), the petition averred that academic utterances cannot constitute ‘hate speech’ actionable under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth and residence) of the IPC.
In the petition, Dr Hausing pointed out that he discovered that an FIR had been filed against him only from a social media platform.
The petition further claimed that the state police has “brazenly” proceeded against the petitioner in violation of Section 207, CrPC.
Section 207 mandates the police agency to provide the accused with certain documents, including a copy of the FIR, statements recorded under Section 161 (examination of witnesses by police) of the CrPC and the confession statement, if any.
Given the ongoing widespread conflict in the state, Hausing submitted in his petition that he is apprehensive of the real and imminent threat to his life if he travels to Manipur.
For the same reasons of safety, he is also unable to invoke the jurisdiction of the Manipur High Court, the petition added.
The petition, thus, sought quashing of the criminal proceedings and summons issued by the magistrate. In the alternative, it prayed for the staying of the criminal proceeding initiated before the magistrate.
Furthermore, the petition highlighted that a fresh complaint was filed against Dr Hausing on July 10 by one Khomdram Manikanta Singh.
The complaint alleged that Dr Hausing is not a citizen of India and that his name was fraudulently added to the electoral rolls.
The petition asserted that Dr Hausing was born within the Indian demography and is entitled to citizenship by birth under Article 5(a) of the Constitution.
Since there is no cause for initiating criminal proceedings against him, the complaint should be quashed, the petition prayed.
The petition also requested the court to direct the respondent to provide the status and record of documents filed in the complaint by Singh.
It also sought a stay on the proceedings of the complaint by Singh.
