Constructive criticism different from tweeting to malign: HC on anticipatory bail plea filed by Madhu Kishwar

CHANDIGARH : Punjab and Haryana HC on Friday dismissed an anticipatory bail plea filed by academic Madhu Kishwar in connection with an FIR registered by Chandigarh Police over the upload and circulation of a video on social media allegedly resembling the holder of a constitutional post.

There is a difference between constructive criticism and tweeting to malign, Justice Aman Chaudhary said after hearing Kishwar’s petition for pre-arrest bail in the FIR, registered on April 19 at Sector 26 police station under BNS and Information Technology Act.

Kishwar’s petition argued the only allegation against her was she had retweeted a 14-second clip on X that was “innocuous and without any ill intent”. The charge of forgery didn’t stand as she was not the one who had made the video, her counsel said, adding, “She is a seasoned academic who has authored many books and has no criminal antecedents.”

Opposing the plea, UT special public prosecutor Amit Jhanji and his team submitted it wasn’t a “mere retweet”. The video was uploaded by another person on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, and the petitioner uploaded it on X after downloading it, the prosecution said, pointing out she had a following of 18 lakh on X.

“The post got widely circulated and received 1,74,000 views... She not only aided in spreading misinformation, but also defamed the image of the head of govt,” said Jhanji.

After hearing both sides, Justice Chaudhary referred to the status report before observing Kishwar had failed to appear despite notices on April 20, April 26 and May 5.

“The video under scanner was uploaded on other social media platforms; however, it was only after the petitioner uploaded the same with her comments that it garnered 1,74,000 views and speculations were made of it resembling the holder of a constitutional post,” Justice Chaudhary said.

“There is, however, an obvious distinction between constructive criticism and tweeting/trolling to malign, cause aspersions and insinuations, and in case the same is by someone like the petitioner, who has a large social media following, the magnitude of the repercussions can be far from what can be fathomed,” HC said.