No free speech protection for statement that people of Kashmir are slaves, under military occupation: J&K High Court

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh last week held that statements that Kashmir is occupied by the military or that people of the region have been reduced to slaves, would not be protected by the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution [Muzamil Butt v. State of Jammu and Kashmir]..Justice Sanjay Dhar was hearing a plea filed by advocate Muzamil Butt, seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him for charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Butt was booked for his Facebook posts criticising the killings of eight civilians in violence that took place at Laroo village, Kulgam district.The Bench noted that Butt had, on his Facebook and other social media platforms, expressed outrage and condemnation of certain incidents, which was within his right to free speech. However, in two other posts, Butt went to the extent of implying that Kashmir has been occupied by the military, which is like a cancer, and also that people of Kashmir are like slaves of the government. Taking note of these posts, the Court said,"In my opinion, the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be stretched to such a limit as to allow a person to question the status of a part of the country or its people. It is one thing to criticize the government for its negligence and express outrage on the violation of human rights of the people but it is quite another to advocate that the people of a particular part of the country are slaves of the government of India or that they are under occupation of armed forces of the Country," the Court said. .Freedom of speech and expression cannot be stretched to allow a person to question the status of a part of the country or its people.Jammu and Kashmir High Court .The judge went on to note that being an advocate, Butt could very well understand the import of these expressions."By making these comments, he is certainly advocating and supporting the claim that Jammu and Kashmir is not a part of India and that it is occupied by Indian military with the people having being reduced to the status of slaves. Thus, he is questioning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Country," Justice Dhar held.The Court further said that by posting such messages, Butt has crossed the Lakshman Rekha of free speech."The petitioner by uploading these posts has cross the Lakshman Rekha which demarcates the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India from the reasonable restrictions imposed on such freedom on the ground of sovereignty and integrity of India. The intention of a person can be gathered from the words spoken or written or other expressions. Therefore, the expressions used by the petitioner, who happens to be a law knowing person, clearly show that he intended to advocate a particular ideology which supports the claim of cessions of Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of India," the order said..It was, therefore, held that these acts of Butt would clearly fall within thedefinition of ‘unlawful activity’ as contained in Section 2(o) of the UAPA..The Court distinguished the present case from that of Vinod Dua's, in which the Supreme Court quashed the sedition case filed against the journalist. It held,"This is so because in Vinod Dua’s case (supra), the petitioner therein who happened to be a journalist, had criticized the functioning of the Government of the day and he had not supported and advocated any claim relating to cession of a part of the Country whereas, in the instant case, the petitioner by uploading the posts on his Facebook, has supported the claim of cession of a particular part of the Country.".On these grounds, the Court refused to quash the case filed against Butt.Advocate MA Qayoom appeared for Butt, while the State was represented by Additional Advocate General Asifa Padroo..[Read Judgment]