38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

"Extreme point of view is not hate speech": Bombay High Court declares while quashing FIR against Sunaina Holey [READ JUDGMENT]

By Athira Nair      08 May, 2021 04:14 PM      0 Comments
Sunaina Holey Bombay HC FIR

The Court revoked an FIR registered against Sunaina Holey under the provisions of Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly reposting a video on social media with a tweet which created enmity between two religious community.

If the point of view is extreme, that doesnt necessarily mean that it is always a hate speech, the Bombay HC stated on Wednesday (May 5, 2021) while referring to a tweet with alleged communal parts to it.

The Court quashed an FIR registered against Sunaina Holey under section 153A of the IPC for allegedly reposting a video which allegedly created tension between two religious communities.

The Bench consisted of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik. It stated that the tweet in reference seems to be a hostile point of view. The states approach is rather on the hypersensitive and cautious side thereby finding Holeys tweet problematic.

The Court further observed that the right to express ones views is protected and held dear in our democracy and system. Merely because the point of view of a certain individual is hostile, the Court cannot declare the tweet as a hate speech. The court states that from a single glace over the tweet, there are no religions or communities named. 

By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the tweet created hatred or tension between the two communities, it stated.

Holey was not the author of the video and there was no offence registered against the actual author of the video. Her repost and statement in the post was an expression of her opinion criticizing the person in the crowd who blamed Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and merely a disapproval to an opinion.

The Court found that the act of FIR was too far and remote. The Court finds it difficult to determine whether Holey has mens rea to commit the alleged offence under section 153A of the provision (IPC.)

State wants us to go through a lot of things, which are unclear in nature, and come to the conclusion that an offence under section 153A IPC is made out, the Court stated.

It expressed its gratitude and appreciation for the police for taking the necessary steps to pacify crowds and keep a diligent watch in social media platforms to ensure that the equilibrium is maintained.

 

[READ JUDGMENT] 



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email