Brief Facts : In the context of the farmers’ protests against the Farm laws, the accused uploaded a post that incorrectly talked about the resignation of about 200 policemen, calling it a ‘rebellion’. The video uploaded was taken from another context altogether. The accused was thus charged with offences relating to sedition and forgery, on having posted a fake video from his Facebook account.
Summary : The court noted that the accused had merely forwarded the image and had not created the content. The court then discussed sedition law and stated that it couldn’t be used as an executive tool to quieten ‘disquiet’. Noting that there was no call for violent acts, nor an incitement to violence in the uploaded content, the court said that S.124A couldn’t be invoked. Thus, bail was granted. As for forgery, the court said that a prime requirement was the dishonest intention to post fraudulent videos online. This was absent, and so was the condition that the person created the video under the authority of someone who had not authorized said creation. Thus, bail was granted.
