Jammu, Sep 4: In a significant order, the Court of Hina Parveen Goney, 4th Additional Munsiff, Jammu has modified/vacated the interim directions earlier passed on October 31st, 2024 whereby the court had temporarily restrained Dr. Vikas Sharma, Former President, Jammu University Research Scholars Executive Association (JURSEA) and presently Research Scholar in Buddhist Studies, University of Jammu from indulging in false, vexatious, scandalous and inflammatory propaganda against the working and functioning of Jammu University and its officials and also airing, telecasting, publishing or giving any interview to any media house (print or electronic) with regard to functioning of Jammu University and its officials in any manner whatsoever till next date of hearing.
The said interim directions had been passed in a civil suit filed by Jammu University through its Registrar against Dr. Vikas Sharma seeking Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining him from indulging in false propaganda against the working and functioning of Jammu University and its officials.
While modifying/vacating the interim directions, the court of Ld. 4th Additional Munsiff, Jammu Hina Parveen Goney after hearing Advocate S.S. Ahmed appearing for Dr. Vikas Sharma whereas Advocate Anil Sethi & Associates appearing for Jammu University observed that the Counsel for the defendant Dr. Vikas Sharma submitted that the civil suit seeks to curtail Right to Free Speech protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India and the defendant’s statements irking the JU highlights the alleged irregularities in a public institution which is a matter of public interest and in this regard Advocate S.S. Ahmed referred a judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled _R. Rajagopal V/s State of Tamilnadu_ wherein the Apex Court held that statements about public bodies if true or based on public records are protected unless actuated by malice.
Advocate S.S. Ahmed vehemently argued that the defendant Dr. Vikas Sharma in his press briefings had placed reliance upon CAG reports, Election Commission of India’s correspondence and University's Record which suggests a factual basis for his statements.
On the other hand, Advocate Anil Sethi & Associates appearing for Jammu University while resisting the arguments of Advocate S.S. Ahmed submitted that the defendant is habitual of levelling false propaganda against the reputed Jammu University and the vilification campaign tarnishes the image of the University in the eyes of the civil society.
The healthy criticism is a backbone of a civilized democracy, however, the right of freedom and expression comes with a caveat i.e. the person speaking, uttering, printing or publishing against a statutory responsible body must not indulge in falsehood, exaggeration of unverified facts, use of defamatory and abusive language.
While rebutting the arguments of Advocate Anil Sethi appearing for Jammu University, Advocate S.S. Ahmed submitted that defendant Dr. Vikas Sharma has always highlighted the genuine issues pertaining to Jammu University and all along his intention has been to point out irregularities, nepotism/favouritism and to highlight the plight of the voiceless students/scholars.
After considering the submissions of both the sides, the 4th Additional Munsiff, Jammu observed and directed that having considered the pleadings, documents and legal principles, the court finds that plaintiff (JU) has not established a prima facie case for continuing the interim direction and directed that the suit shall proceed for trial on merits but did not extend the interim directions earlier passed on October 31st, 2024.
|