Anantnag Mar 3 (GNS): Special NIA Judge Anantnag Thursday denied bail to two accused in a case pertaining to ‘defamation’ of girls pursuing education outside Jammu and Kashmir.
As per the case before the judge, Javed Alam, two persons circulated a video on social media portal Facebook ‘with the purpose of character assassination of the girl students studying in other parts of the country and to foment trouble and hatred against the nation by deliberate aggravation and provocation’.
It has been alleged that the accused in cahoots with other persons tried to incite and provoke people against the nation by claiming through a video that later went viral on various social media platforms, that girl students who are pursuing education in other parts of the country, have been ‘found involved in immoral activities and decadent acts and are also using psychotropic drugs’.
Deliberating on the issue, the judge said, “Petitioners/accused persons as elicited from the police report are allegedly involved in character assassination of the female students studying in outside colleges and universities of J&K i.e in other states of the country, the act alleged to have been resorted to by them , is not only a torment for the girls in particular but it has likelihood of sowing the seeds of reservation in the minds of thousands of parents to dissuade them from allowing their daughters to achieve meritoriously in the field of education.”
The court further said: “It may be a combined act of to demoralize such enthusiastic parents with conspirators using the accused as a front. There is no denying fact that there may have been such incidents alleged in the past but they are sporadically taking place like in every society and ours cannot be an exception.”
Any action whether favorable or unfavorable, the court said, has to be perceived through the lenses of the persons who veers through such situations. “No one has the right to meddle into the affairs of an another person unless permitted by the latter . Law is trite that every individual who is a major has a choice at his disposal to do things perceived by him as right and fruitful within the frame work of legal boundaries,” the court said, adding, “ It may sound insane to the so called social media peers of the society whose sole job is to indulge in mudslinging and hurling choicest invectives on those who dream big and subsequently achieve big.”
Even if it is assumed that there was some truth behind their mindless post , the good contribution on their part would have to be a counseling session with that individual alleged to have done anything unacceptable, the court said.
“In a progressive society you cannot gag or condemn a person for any action appearing unsuitable to you. Suitability and unsuitability is an individual perception which cannot be snatched on the dent of force or intimidation,” the court said, adding, “Neither, can an individual impose or thrust a choice on another person who wittingly or unwittingly is not ready to comply it. Choice is an individual liberty which cannot be curtailed on the flimsiest excuses in the garb of culture or religion.”
Further, the court said, the marriage prospects of the girls despite exemplary mettle proved by them in the field of education in the recent past is also at stake due to the character assassination and act of the accused.
“It may not be a war against the nation, but ,it definitely is a war against the girl child to deprive them of equal opportunities and guaranteed rights to suffocate their ambitions and torment their souls , to clip their flight of development and turn them naive and un-relevant”. (GNS)