Gujarat High Court: Supreme Court quashes FIRs against three policemen | News from Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad: The High Court of Gujarat has five FIRs filed against three Police officers for the demand for a Salary increase in a Social media groupThe court found that expressing any opinion or making any criticism does not constitute a criminal offence.
The Supreme Court has quashed FIRs filed in five districts of south Gujarat against three policemen — Kalpesh Chaudhary, Rajesh Vadher and Kapil Desai — for their participation in a WhatsApp group titled '2800police_SRPF_Districtwise' for a salary hike in July 2020. They were charged with criminal conspiracy (Section 120B of the IPC); intention to create public fear by spreading rumours to commit an offence against the state or public tranquillity (Section 505(1)(B) of the IPC); violation of the Disaster Management Act and fomenting disaffection among the policemen against the government (Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922).
After hearing the arguments of the plaintiffs and the state government, the court observed that the policemen's movement was inspired by the success of the teachers' movement for higher salaries. The policemen's demand for a salary hike was met after several MPs asked the government for it. The Director General of Police later issued a circular asking policemen not to engage in union activities, including on social media.
Justice HD Suthar found the charge of criminal conspiracy unfounded. The Chief Justice also said that the allegations did not amount to offences under the Disaster Management Act and the Police (Inciting Discontent) Act.
The court discussed the charge under Section 505(1)(B) of the IPC in detail and stated, “…neither the police officers nor any other government employee has committed any offence against the State or public peace. Merely on the basis of apprehension or supposition, the appellants cannot be charged with any offence under Section 505(1)(B) of the IPC.”
The court further stated, “The mere fact that the plaintiffs have circulated a self-written message without their consent is not a ground to charge the plaintiffs with the offence under Section 505(1)(B) of the IPC.”
The Supreme Court said it was a fair and genuine attempt and a legitimate demand and the government subsequently accepted it, so it was not a rumour. “Mere expression of opinion or exercise of fundamental right or expression of criticism under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is not an offence. On the basis of the allegations made in the FIRs and other accompanying circumstances, no offence has been committed against the present petitioners,” the Supreme Court said and quashed the FIRs.