TEHSEEN POONAWALLA V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. (SLP (CRL.) NO. 7550/2019):

DATE: 08/04/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

FACTS:

The appellant, along with another individual, Vishal Dadlani, had filed a petition before the High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 295A, 153A, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The allegations stemmed from a tweet posted by the petitioners on 27th August 2016, expressing comments perceived as disrespectful towards Jain Saint Shri Tarun Sagarji, whose sermons were delivered in the Vidhan Sabha session that had commenced on 26th August 2016. It was alleged that their social media broadcast had spread religious discontentment and enmity towards the Jain community. The High Court examined whether the contents of the tweets constituted any cognizable offense and ultimately found that no offense was made out against the petitioners. However, despite quashing the FIR, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs.10 lakhs each on the petitioners for allegedly mocking a religious figure to gain publicity.

The deceased Jain Saint, Tarun Sagarji, was a prominent figure known for his teachings on non-violence and forgiveness. The High Court, while acknowledging the petitioners' right to freedom of speech, imposed the cost after observing that the petitioners' contributions towards society were insignificant when compared to the contributions of the Jain saint. The Court further justified the imposition of costs by citing recent incidents of violent protests incited through social media. Dissatisfied with the imposition of costs, the appellant challenged this part of the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that once it was held that no offense was made out, there was no basis to penalize them financially.

ISSUES:

The core issue in this case was whether, after holding that no criminal offense had been made out against the petitioners, the High Court was justified in imposing a monetary cost of ₹10 lakhs each on them, based on moral or social considerations outside the scope of the legal framework.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the High Court’s direction to impose costs on the appellant and the co-petitioner. It upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the FIR but ruled that imposing costs after determining that no offense was made out was unjustified. The rest of the High Court’s order remained undisturbed.

The Supreme Court found that once the High Court had concluded that no offense had been made out under the IPC or the IT Act, it should have simply quashed the FIR without imposing any punitive costs. The Court emphasized that the fundamental right of free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution had been upheld, and thus, penalizing the petitioners financially undermined that very right. The High Court’s imposition of costs was seen as an exercise of "non-existent jurisdiction," especially when the findings on the merits were entirely in favor of the petitioners.

Further, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court for indulging in moral policing by comparing the social contributions of the Jain saint and the petitioners. It reiterated that the judiciary’s role is to adjudicate legal disputes based on law and evidence, not to engage in subjective assessments of moral worthiness. The Court highlighted that courts must not substitute legal reasoning with subjective views on morality or societal contributions when deciding purely legal matters. Consequently, the imposition of costs was set aside to protect the sanctity of constitutional rights and the legal process.

ANALYSIS:

The present case reflects a significant judicial reaffirmation of constitutional principles, particularly the right to free speech and the proper exercise of judicial discretion. The core of the dispute arose not from the initial allegations themselves, which the High Court rightly found to be without merit, but from the High Court's decision to impose a punitive financial burden on the petitioners despite quashing the FIR. The High Court’s reasoning — comparing the societal contributions of the Jain saint to those of the petitioners and penalizing them based on perceived disrespect — represented a clear deviation from established legal norms. In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that once it is determined that no criminal offense is made out, the judiciary has no jurisdiction to impose costs on parties based on subjective moral judgments or social comparisons. The Court's focus was on reinforcing that judicial decisions must be grounded strictly in law and constitutional rights, and not influenced by personal views about public morality or the social value of the parties involved.

Further, the Supreme Court's intervention is critical in underlining the dangers of "moral policing" by courts, which, if unchecked, could seriously undermine the rule of law. By setting aside the High Court’s imposition of costs, the Supreme Court protected the sanctity of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution — ensuring that the right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be indirectly punished once it is legally upheld. The judgment sends a clear message that courts must refrain from acting as arbiters of social morality, particularly in cases where constitutional rights are at stake. It also underscores that once a court finds in favor of a litigant on substantive grounds — such as the absence of a criminal offense — it must not, thereafter, dilute that finding through punitive or moralistic orders. In this way, the judgment not only delivers justice in the specific case but also fortifies broader constitutional protections against judicial overreach.

Judgements