Case Against Ex-IB Officer Charged With Defaming Shia Community Closed By Leh Court
Last Updated on September 10, 2024 by Administrator
According to reports, Tanwar claimed to have mentioned connections between the Shia minority in Ladakh and the militant group Hizbul Momineen, which was purportedly active in Kashmir in the early 1990s.
Retired Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Tej Singh Tanwar was recently cleared by a Leh court in a criminal complaint alleging that in 2021, during a conversation with the media channel Aaj Tak, he made disparaging remarks about the Shia population in Ladakh.
Tanwar had claimed that the Shia minority in Ladakh was connected to a militant group known as Hizbul Momineen, which was purportedly active in Kashmir in the early 1990s.
Then, a well-known Leh religious group called Anjuman Imamia reported Tanwar to the police.
He was charged with violating the Indian Penal Code’s Sections 188 (disobedience to an order validly published by a public officer), 298 (uttering remarks, etc., with malicious intent to injure the religious sentiments), and 500 (defamation).
Chief Judicial Magistrate Tsewang Phuntsog, who detained Singh, stated that the media outlet’s records omitted the word “Shia,” much less “Shia Community of Ladakh.”
He was charged with violating the Indian Penal Code’s Sections 188 (disobedience to an order validly published by a public officer), 298 (uttering remarks, etc., with malicious intent to injure the religious sentiments), and 500 (defamation).
Chief Judicial Magistrate Tsewang Phuntsog, who detained Singh, stated that the media outlet’s records omitted the word “Shia,” much less “Shia Community of Ladakh.”
The Court further stated that this suggests the accused made no mention of the Shia community in Ladakh in his statement.
Thus, it closed the case against him for violating Section 298 (damaging religious feelings) and Section 500 (defamation).
Crucially, the complaint is based on the accused’s statement from the TV Today program on January 30, 2021. Consequently, taking into account all of the information on file, this Court believes that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with charging the accused with violating Sections 298 and 500 IPC.
Tanwar’s attorney had previously maintained that, in order for Section 188 of the IPC to apply, there needed to be a public servant’s order, which was not present in this instance. Additionally, it was stated that the case was brought to Leh because the accused was purportedly quoted outside of the Union Territory.
The Court was informed that even if such an injunction had been obtained, it would not cover utterances made somewhere other than Leh.
Additionally, it was claimed that the charges were baseless and that the conditions for offenses under Sections 298 and 500 of the IPC were not fulfilled.
However, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) contended that there was sufficient evidence in the file to pursue the accused’s case.
The Court stated that neither the chargesheet nor any of the promulgations attached to it mentioned any promulgation, while finding no case made out against Tanwar.
Therefore, nothing is on file to support further action against the accused for the offense punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code,” it continued.
As a result, the Court also dismissed the accused’s charges under Section 188.
Vikas Malik, an attorney, represented Singh.
Tsering Phuntsog, a second public prosecutor, represented the State.
Case Title : State v Tej Singh Tanwar
