Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against NCPCR Chief Over Orphanage Tweet, Urges Restraint in Public Office
Last Updated on September 18, 2024 by Amit Patra
In a reasonably balanced decision that addresses free speech as well as reasonable behavior in public, the Karnataka High Court has discharged criminal proceedings Prosecution initiated against Priyank Kanoongo, the chief of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), over a Muslim orphanage social media post. The case presents the dilemma that senior governmental officials face between governance responsibilities and public speaking.
Kanoongo made the controversy when he visited a Muslim orphanage in Bengaluru under a cloak of anonymity and published on X ( previously on Twitter) that the children in the facility were living under ‘Taliban’ rule. This prompted the secretary of the orphanage, Ashraf Khan, to report Kanoongo to the police for trespassing and defamation.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, who was presiding over the case noted that there was no terrorism indication in the post done by Kanoongo as was alleged by the original complaint. This dissimilarities between the offense that was alleged to have been committed and what was published became one of the leading reasons why the FIR and the criminal proceedings that followed were dismissed.
However, the court’s ruling in this case had a crucial condition that followed it. Justice Nagaprasanna said something to the effect that the government servants should not so frequently open their mouth in public. “Government officials should encourage restraint, when you go and report, it should form what you have reported and what you have noticed, you should not tweet on that,” the court observed. This statement presupposes a lot of accountability especially when in a public office, involved in issues to do with children or any religious entity.
This case brought up issues about free speech rights of those holding public offices and the implication of their social media engagement. While the court was patient enough to hear Kanoongo’s observation, the court also affirmed the professional conducts of officials who sometimes have to keep their observation to themselves.
It is important for public officials especially those in the child protection agencies cherish the responsibility of reporting the concerns without compromising on responsible reporting especially in a world which constantly seeks the latest update. It also draws attention to the possible legal consequences for government personnel in light of their social media activities, particularly where these concern contentious social issues.
The dismissing of the case against Kanoongo may one day be a precedent to other similar circumstances which may leave future public officials more alert about their communication tactics than their misconduct. It also enhances our understanding of the judiciary’s duty regarding the rather contentious issues such as free speech and constitutional duties in today’s social media age.
