Relief for activist booked for bombarding Mumbai Metro chief's phone with 'Save Aarey' texts

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday restrained the police from filing a charge sheet against the director of an online campaign organiser who was booked last year after Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation's managing director Ashwini Bhide was bombarded with thousands of calls and messages to save Aarey.


The court heard a petition by Avijit Michael (34) of the organisation Jhatkaa to quash an FIR lodged by Sanjay Dani (67) on January 18, 2018. Avijit was booked under section 186 (obstruction to public servant) of IPC and sections 43 F (blocking access to computer/network) and 66 (computer-related offences) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

In December 2017, Aarey Conservation Group started a campaign on Jhatkaa's website airalert.in to save Aarey from being destroyed for the Metro-3 car-shed and over 2.75 lakh citizens signed up. The police alleged that several misleading messages were circulated on WhatApp, Twitter and SMS to ask Bhide and the then CM Devendra Fadnavis to look for alternatives. On May 7, 2018 Avijit was arrested and released on bail.

The FIR stated that messages came on Bhide's mobile phone and it became difficult for her to perform her official duties. "Ms Bhide switched off one number and calls started coming on another number and in this manner Ms Bhide was prevented from using her phones. As her daily work and personal life were disturbed, the complaint was filed," it added.

But Avijit's petition said the FIR was "completely false and baseless" and he had been booked without evidence, and also, Bhide's phone numbers are official and listed on government websites and there was no intention to harass or obstruct her work.

Senior advocate Gayatri Singh argued for him that "it is not their case that vulgar, obscene messages were sent or that she (Bhide) was threatened". The bench, of Justices Ranjit More and Makarand Karnik, noted that while the offence, under IPC, is non-cognisable, those under the IT Act are cognisable with a maximum punishment under section 66 of upto three years.

In their order, the judges said, "In our prima facie view, the allegation made in the FIR falls short of making an offence under sections 43 (f) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000."

Issuing a notice to Dani to reply on December 16, they said that until that date, "though investigation shall proceed, no charge sheet shall be filed in the matter without prior approval of this court".