CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of academician Madhu Purnima Kishwar, who was booked in a case for allegedly retweeting a video clip on social media that led to charges including defamation and promoting enmity.
The Chenab Times has learned that the court, presided over by Justice Aman Chaudhary, observed a distinction between “constructive criticism and tweeting/trolling.” The bench emphasized that given Kishwar’s substantial following on social media, the potential repercussions of her posts could be significant.
The high court noted that the current case was not an isolated incident and highlighted that Kishwar had a history of posting on matters deemed “sensitive.” The court stated that the investigation was in its preliminary stages, with several aspects yet to be fully investigated, leading to the denial of her pre-arrest bail plea.
Madhu Kishwar had been booked by the Chandigarh Police based on a complaint alleging the circulation of forged and misleading content on social media platforms. She faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Represented by her counsels Kapil Sibal and Sartaj Singh Narula, Kishwar had argued that the sole allegation against her was retweeting a 14-second video clip that they described as innocuous and posted without malicious intent. Her legal team contended that the offense of forgery was not applicable as she had not created the video itself. They further presented her as a seasoned academician with no prior criminal record.
The defense counsel also argued that her previous social media activity should not be held against her in the current case, as no action had been taken previously regarding those posts. They asserted that she could not be held responsible for the comments or actions of others on her uploaded content.
Conversely, the counsel representing the Union Territory of Chandigarh argued that Kishwar’s actions extended beyond a mere retweet. The prosecution stated that the video was initially uploaded by another individual on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. Kishwar then downloaded it and uploaded it onto her X (formerly Twitter) account, where she has a considerable following of approximately 1.8 million users.
The counsel submitted that the video gained widespread circulation after Kishwar’s post, accumulating over 174,000 views. They contended that this boosted her popularity on such issues and that she not only facilitated the spread of misinformation but also defamed the image of the head of the government.
The court, referencing a status report filed in the matter, pointed out that Kishwar had failed to appear before the investigating agency despite being duly served notices at her Delhi address on April 20, April 26, and May 5. This non-cooperation was noted as a significant aspect of her conduct.
The court’s order stated that while the video was uploaded on other social media platforms, it was after Kishwar posted it with her comment that it garnered substantial views. It was further observed that speculations arose about the content resembling that of a constitutional post holder, which was subsequently amplified when she retweeted in that regard.
The bench elaborated on the difference between constructive criticism and malicious tweeting or trolling, emphasizing that when such posts are made by individuals with large social media followings like Kishwar, the consequences can be far more severe than anticipated. The court noted that such content could potentially incite disharmony, encourage separatist sentiments, and jeopardize the nation’s unity and integrity.
As a prominent social media personality and scholar, the court reasoned, Kishwar could not be presumed unaware of the impact of her tweet, which not only attracted a large number of views but also elicited comments from other accused individuals and the general public.
The court also took into account the status report indicating that Kishwar had previously tweeted with different hashtags on posts of “sentimental sensitivity.” Considering the rapid spread of misinformation via social media, the court stressed the greater social responsibility that comes with creating and disseminating content.
Given the current stage of the investigation, where several aspects are yet to be uncovered, the court concluded that it was too early to dismiss the possibility of criminal intent. Consequently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that it was not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and her petition was dismissed.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
