SC overturns Rs 10 lakh fine on Vishal Dadlani, Tehseen Poonawalla; slams HC for moral policing over tweets

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a strong rebuke to judicial moralism, setting aside a Rs 10 lakh cost imposed on musician Vishal Dadlani and political activist Tehseen Poonawalla for tweets they posted in 2016 criticising a Jain monk's appearance in a state assembly session.

A bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that a court's role is not to engage in moral policing and that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had erred in penalising the duo despite concluding that no criminal offence had been committed.

“No notice was served. What kind of order is this? The court should not indulge in moral policing. That’s not its function at all,” the bench said during the hearing.

In its 2019 judgment, the High Court had quashed criminal charges against Dadlani and Poonawalla but had directed both to pay ₹10 lakh each as a deterrent, reasoning that such criticism of religious figures “just to gain social media publicity” must not be encouraged.

The Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning, saying, “Once the High Court found no offence was made out, there was no basis for imposing costs. Courts cannot adopt an advisory or moralistic role when there is no legal basis for punishment.”

The controversy dates back to August 2016, when Jain monk Tarun Sagar addressed the Haryana Assembly while observing his religious vow of nudity. Dadlani had tweeted his disapproval of religious figures being invited to government platforms, sparking massive backlash. Poonawalla echoed similar sentiments, questioning societal double standards.

Dadlani later issued a public apology and met the monk in person to seek forgiveness. Tarun Sagar accepted the apology, saying both had made their remarks without fully understanding the Jain tradition. Still, a third party unaffiliated with the Jain community filed a criminal complaint against them.

The High Court had acknowledged that the remarks didn’t constitute an offence under sections related to promoting religious enmity or hurting sentiments but nevertheless imposed the hefty fine to "discourage similar conduct in future."

The top court today clarified that courts must not pass punitive orders based on subjective values, especially after acquitting individuals of wrongdoing.

“The High Court appears to have been swayed by the criticism of a religious head. That alone cannot justify penalising individuals who have already been cleared of criminal charges,” the bench concluded, striking down the cost order.