The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a summon by an Andhra Pradesh court against Mahendra Singh Dhoni for being depicted as Hindu god Vishnu on the cover of Business Today magazine. This article was first published on The Quint earlier this month.
- A recent cover of Fortune Magazine with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, drawn to resemble Vishnu, has stirred up controversy among Hindu groups in the US.
- MS Dhoni is facing entirely unintended consequences of a Business Today cover which depicted him as Vishnu.
- Similar bouts of outrage broke out a decade ago when actress-politician Khushboo spoke about pre-marital sex.
- It’s time courts started to seriously combat the problem of frivolous, attention-seeking litigation.
Jeff Bezos: The Controversial Face of Fortune Magazine
The recent cover of Fortune Magazine with Jeff Bezos, drawn to allegedly resemble the Hindu god Vishnu has already stirred up controversy among Hindu groups in the United States. While the article in question is ostensibly about Amazon’s big push to enter the Indian market, the cover illustration drawn by Sydney Buchanan shows a blue-tinted Bezos holding a lotus and bedecked with jewels, reminiscent of a Raja Ravi Varma calendar portrait of Vishnu.
The tastefulness or otherwise of this particular choice of illustration notwithstanding, Fortune Editor-in-Chief has already issued a non-apology apology offered to “those who may have been offended”. The matter seems to have ended there in the United States for the time being, but there’s no gainsaying a fresh round of outrage and offence being taken in India, followed by the inevitable complaints/lawsuits when the magazine hits the stores here.
An Unintentional Vishnu: MS Dhoni Faces the Consequences
Indeed, India’s ODI and T20 captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni is already facing the entirely unintended consequences of a Business Today cover which depicted him as Vishnu. Earlier this year, an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bangalore took cognizance of a complaint against Dhoni filed by “social worker” Jayakumar Hiremath under Sections 295A and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned Dhoni to court. The Karnataka High Court dismissed Dhoni’s petition. It finally took the Supreme Court to stay the proceedings.
Yet, on the same facts and under the same provisions, a fresh complaint has been filed, cognizance taken and a non-bailable warrant issued by a court in Anantapur against MS Dhoni. It seems pretty clear in that both the Bangalore and the Anantapur courts have simply not applied their minds to the issue at hand – whether even the basics of the offence under Section 295A IPC are made out.
Supreme Court Comes to Khushboo’s Rescue
There’s no evidence that in either case the complainant approached the state government for sanction to prosecute Dhoni as mandated under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Neither court seems to have bothered itself with the simple question as to whether Dhoni, who only posed for a photograph and obviously did not create the cover illustration, should have even been summoned in the first place.
Similar bouts of outrage and offence-taking broke out a decade ago, followed by criminal complaints, when actress-politician Khushboo spoke about pre-marital sex. Once again the Supreme Court came to the rescue pointing out that none of the complaints even made out the basics of the offence against Khusbhoo and quashed them all.
Judicial System: A Dagger to Free Speech
While some may enjoy the schadenfreude of seeing the rich, famous and influential being dragged to the courts, the fact remains that the law and the judicial system, as they stand, are like a dagger pointed at the neck of people who wish to exercise their right to free speech.
Perversely, only the very rich, famous and influential can escape the full consequences of these laws because they can hire the best of lawyers and approach the Supreme Court in appeal where ordinary litigants cannot.
There are too few consequences against those who abuse the judicial system and judges who allow litigants to abuse the judicial system for personal gain or fame. Procedurally, it is far too easy to indulge in litigation for the sake of it or for fame with no sanction when the case is (eventually) dismissed as frivolous, especially when courts are willing to flout mandatory procedural provisions to enable such litigation.
While costs are sometimes imposed in civil suits, there is no such remedial measure in criminal complaints under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While costs may be imposed under Section 359 on the convicted, to be paid to the complainant, there is no provision by which a frivolous or malicious prosecution may be punished by the imposition of costs. However, if arrest takes place as a result of such a frivolous complaint, then the law provides remedy to the falsely arrested person – compensation up to Rupees One Hundred.
Courts Must Decline Frivolous Cases
Such frivolous filings have effects beyond just the immediate victims of such acts. The limited time and energy of the court is taken up in hearing these cases and while their numbers may not be so high as to add to the larger burden of pending cases, the fact remains that every minute spent on a frivolous case is a minute that is taken away from a genuine case.
It’s time courts at all levels started to combat the problem of frivolous, attention-seeking litigation. While the Supreme Court exists as a remedy of last resort for those who can afford it, High Courts must get into the action and discipline erring judicial officers who enable or encourage frivolous litigation. Else our fundamental rights will be at the mercy of those with too much time, too little sense and an axe to grind.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)