Introduction:

In a striking display of judicial reproach, the Bombay High Court questioned the democratic ethos of the Maharashtra Police after a local police officer’s letter led to a departmental inquiry against Dr. Mrunalini Aher, an English professor at Yashwantrao Chavan College. The inquiry was initiated following Dr. Aher’s reference to the book “Shivaji Kon Hota” (Who Was Shivaji?) by comrade Govind Pansare, during an attempt to calm students who had attacked another professor for his speech on revered personalities. This case highlights the tensions between academic freedom and law enforcement in India.

Arguments from the Petitioner:

Advocate Yuvraj Narwankar, representing Dr. Mrunalini Aher, argued that the police’s actions were an overreach of authority, violating Dr. Aher’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech. He contended that Dr. Aher’s reference to the book was a legitimate academic act aimed at pacifying a volatile situation and that there was no justification for the police to intervene or for the college to initiate a departmental inquiry based on the police’s directive.

Arguments from the Police:

Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar, defending the police’s actions, maintained that the letter to the college principal was justified under Section 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows police to take preventive measures to avert potential crimes. He asserted that the police acted within their rights to prevent further unrest among the students and that the college’s inquiry was a separate matter based on its internal policies.

Court’s Judgment:

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan strongly criticized the police’s involvement, questioning the democratic principles at play. Justice Mohite-Dere expressed disbelief that a democratic system could allow such police interference in academic matters. The court was particularly critical of the police’s reliance on Section 149 CrPC, finding no basis for its application in this context. Justice Chavan questioned the qualifications of the investigating officer, highlighting discrepancies in his understanding of Marathi literature and the book in question.

The bench concluded that the police had exceeded their authority by directing the college to take action against Dr. Aher, emphasizing that such directives should not come from the police. Instead, any legitimate police concerns should have been addressed through proper legal channels without infringing on academic freedom.

In their judgment, the judges instructed the police to withdraw the impugned letter unconditionally, warning that failure to do so would result in strictures against the officers involved. Following this, Venegavkar informed the court that the District Superintendent of Satara had agreed to withdraw the letter, leading the court to dispose of the plea.