Person jailed for posting message in Facebook
Police accused of pushing him into dark room without dress
►Notice slapped again after coming out on bail
Mangaluru: Bunder (North) station police after filing a suo motto case, jailed a person for posting a message in facebook recently. The social media is abuzz with sharp comments against the act of police that came to light lately.
The arrested Ashraf M. Salethur is now mulling to file complaint with commissioner of police against the 'injustice' meted out to him.
Against a Facebook post that ‘the court permission for the entry of menstruating women to Sabarimala temple was the main reason for flood situation in Kerala’, Ashraf questioned ‘Then what is the reason for flood situation in Tulu Nadu which is the creation of Parashuram?’ While some people had supported his post , some opposed it
It is alleged that, based on this post, the Bunder police booked suo motto case against Ashraf under Section 153, 505(2), tortured arrested him and produced him before the court on August 22.
Later, the court remanded him to judicial custody. After one week, he came out of the jail on bail and again posted a message in facebook alleging police atrocity.
On September 4, the police served a notice to Ashraf saying that "you have commented on the same issue in Facebook even when you are out on bail. So, you should be present before the investigating officer soon after you receive the notice for further enquiry. Otherwise, the police will file a petition before the court to cancel the bail granted for you”, Ashraf said.
Was Undressed, snatched cash and other valuables: Ashraf
“On August 21, CCB police constable Jabbar called me and asked me to come to police station saying that he wanted to speak to me and leave me within five minutes. Since I knew him, I went to the police station where I was asked questions after questions on my Facebook post and later took me to the Port police station in the police vehicle. Again, the inspector and other police officers there asked the same questions. I said that I would react to the current issues and especially anti-Constitutional statements in social media. Then they asked me ‘Will you write on the incident where the copies of the Constitution were burnt in New Delhi?’ I said yes, I will write. They snatched Rs. 450 worth memory card, earphone, watch, leather belt, vehicle records etc. They wrote down my bio-data. It confirmed that they would arrest me. I requested them to allow me to celebrate Bakrid. But they did not listen . After conducting enquiry till 12 midnight, I was undressed and pushed into the dark room where I suffered due to mosquitoes, and other insects. I could not sleep that entire night. Next day, it was Bakrid. Before taking me to the court, they returned my watch, ATM card and RC and asked me to tell before the judge as I was instructed. Without choice, I repeated what the police wanted me to say before the judge. I was in jail from August 22 to 28 and later came out on bail. I have written in the Facebook against this injustice . Once again, the police have served notice to me. I have decided to complain to the Mangaluru Police Commissioner against the police who undressed me and snatched money and other valuables”, Ashraf told Vartha Bharati.
Action against those who reacted to post
Inspector Suresh Kumar said that the posts in Ashraf’s Facebook account had the potential to disturb peace in the society. So, the police have booked suo motto case against him. This is not the first case of that kind. In the past also police have booked people for making unlawful comments in social media and took action against them. The police would also take action against those who reacted to the post, he said. But he did not give details about how many cases were filed.
"Why no action against other people making anti social posts"
“Ashraf is not an illiterate. He is a post graduate. So, it is common to respond to the current issues. The opinion shared in his Facebook account on Kerala natural disaster was not intended to create disturbance. Vested interests have their hands behind port station police filing the suo motto case. That should be revealed. If the police were to file such suo motto cases, then they have to file several such cases everyday here. There are many messages in the social media which can disturb peace in the society. When Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan visited Mangaluru, people insulted communists that we were born to Muslims. Then why didn't police file case against that post ? Minister UT Khader should take this seriously. The Minister should understand that he has become the minister under minorities quota. He should not maintain silence when minorities are targeted. There are many progressive and secularists in Muslim community. By filing fake complaints against them, police themselves are converting them into anti socials. We have considered this issue seriously. We are with Ashraf and we will fight against this injustice”, said DYFI district secretary Santosh Bajal.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Madras HC rules spousal privacy as a fundamental right, disallows evidence obtained through snooping
Chennai: In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court emphasized the protection of spousal privacy as a fundamental right, ruling that evidence obtained by one spouse snooping on the other is inadmissible in court. This ruling came as Justice G.R. Swaminathan overturned a lower court's decision that had allowed a husband to submit his wife's call records in a marital dispute case.
The court made it clear that privacy, as a constitutionally guaranteed right, includes the privacy of married individuals from each other, rejecting the notion that marital misconduct permits invasion of personal privacy. "Law cannot proceed on the premise that marital misconduct is the norm. Privacy as a fundamental right includes spousal privacy, and evidence obtained by invading this right is inadmissible," stated the court.
The case originated in Paramakudi Subordinate Court, where the husband submitted the wife's call data as evidence to support claims of adultery, cruelty, and desertion. He had obtained these records without her consent, an act the High Court deemed a violation of privacy. Additionally, the call records were not accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, making them procedurally inadmissible.
Justice Swaminathan noted that allowing such evidence would open doors to spouses spying on each other, damaging the foundational trust in marital relationships. “Trust forms the bedrock of matrimonial relationships. The spouses must have implicit and total faith in each other. Snooping destroys the fabric of marital life,” he stated.
The High Court further advised that allegations of misconduct could be pursued through authorized methods, such as interrogatories or affidavits, cautioning that the court must not assume marital misconduct as a norm justifying privacy breaches.
