Introduction:

In a significant ruling on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India overturned the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision that had imposed a cost of ₹10 lakh each on musician Vishal Dadlani and activist Tehseen Poonawalla. This cost was levied despite the High Court quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them for their alleged derogatory remarks about Jain Saint Tarun Sagar on social media platforms.

Background of the Case:

The controversy began in August 2016 when Vishal Dadlani and Tehseen Poonawalla made critical comments on Twitter regarding Jain monk Tarun Sagar’s address to the Haryana Legislative Assembly. Dadlani questioned the appropriateness of a nude monk speaking in the assembly, while Poonawalla shared a photoshopped image juxtaposing a semi-nude woman with the monk, challenging societal standards. These posts led to an FIR being filed against them in Haryana’s Ambala district under Sections 295-A, 153-A, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for allegedly hurting religious sentiments and promoting enmity between different groups.

High Court Proceedings:

Both Dadlani and Poonawalla approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR. In its judgment, the High Court acknowledged their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and concluded that the offenses alleged were not made out against them. However, the court imposed a cost of ₹10 lakh each, directing them to deposit specified amounts with charitable trusts and funds. The High Court reasoned that this imposition was to ensure that in the future, they would refrain from mocking religious figures for publicity on social media. The court also compared the contributions of the petitioners to society with those of Jain Muni Tarun Sagar, suggesting that the monk’s contributions were more significant.

Supreme Court’s Judgment:

Dadlani and Poonawalla challenged the High Court’s imposition of costs in the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that after holding that no offense was made out against the appellants and upholding their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, the High Court should not have imposed costs on them. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not the function of courts to engage in moral policing and disapproved of the High Court’s comparison of the contributions made by the monk with those of Dadlani and Poonawalla. The Court stated that the High Court ought to have followed the well-settled rule of “costs to follow the event,” meaning that the unsuccessful party in the litigation should ordinarily bear the costs. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order imposing costs on the appellants.