Courts not supposed to do moral policing: Supreme Court sets aside HC order against Tehseen Poonawalla

A bench of Justices Abhay S Okay and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the 2019 order of the high court which had directed Poonawala and music composer and singer Vishal Dadlani to pay costs.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order imposing a Rs 10 lakh cost each on political analyst Tehseen Poonawalla and musician Vishal Dadlani for allegedly insulting and mocking Jain saint Tarun Sagar on Twitter in 2016, observing "courts are not supposed to do moral policing."

Taking up their plea, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan asked, “What kind of order is passed by the court (Punjab and Haryana HC)? Court is not supposed to do moral policing. This is not the function of the court at all."

The High Court, in its 2019 order, had quashed the criminal case but imposed costs on Dadlani and Poonawalla for allegedly insulting and mocking Jain saint Tarun Sagar on Twitter in 2016.

The High Court had imposed the cost on the duo, saying they had insulted the priest and hurt the sentiments of the followers of the Jain religion. It had said the cost was necessary so that, in future, they may not mock any head of a religious sect for publicity on social media.

It was alleged that Poonawalla posted a photoshopped image of a semi-nude woman alongside the Jain saint and raised a question about societal standards.

In a relief to the petitioners, the apex court said the High Court was swayed by the fact that the appellants had criticised a priest belonging to a particular religion.

“We are of the view that after finding that absolutely no offence was made out when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court ought not to have exercised advisory jurisdiction by telling the appellant (Poonawalla and Dadlani) that the contribution made by the priest was much more than what the appellant and the other accused have contributed. The function of the court is not to do moral policing,” the bench said.