Criticism of govt, CM not ‘war’ against nation: Court

A Pune court has granted bail to an NCP (SP) office-bearer, stating that criticism of the government or the chief minister, by itself, cannot be construed as “waging war” against the nation.

Every citizen has the right to comment on, compliment and criticise the government’s actions, Additional Sessions Judge B D Kulkarni said on Tuesday while allowing NCP (SP) functionary Mahadev Balgude’s bail plea.

Balgude, the state head of the social media wing of Sharad Pawar-led NCP (SP), was arrested in April this year on charges of circulating morphed photos of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on social media platforms and also posting content allegedly sympathetic to Naxalites.

Among other sections, Balgude was booked under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with purposely or knowingly endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

The court noted that the case papers showed the applicant had questioned the investigation process in certain cases and the functioning of government schemes, which fell within the realm of public discourse.

“Nothing on record suggests that the accused has declared or incited waging war against the State or committed any act endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India,” it observed.

The applicability of BNS Section 152 in the present case was “debatable”, and the remaining offences invoked against the accused were bailable, the judge noted.

The investigation was over, and the chargesheet had been filed, the court said, adding that no further custodial interrogation of the accused was required.

Granting bail, the court directed Balgude to execute a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one or two sureties. It also directed him not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, to furnish his residential address and mobile number to the investigation officer, and not to leave the country without prior permission of the court.

Balgude’s lawyer, Sameer Shaikh, argued the case was politically motivated and that criticism of the government was protected under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. He submitted that the investigation had been completed and there was nothing further to be recovered from the accused.

The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the accused had used objectionable language in the social media posts and committed offences against the State.