Supreme Court Shields Psephologist Sanjay Kumar from Arrest in Electoral Roll Misinformation Case
New Delhi – The Supreme Court has provided interim protection from arrest to prominent psephologist Sanjay Kumar, facing allegations of spreading misinformation regarding Maharashtra’s electoral rolls. Two FIRs were lodged against Kumar by the Election Commission, stemming from social media posts on X (formerly Twitter) that raised concerns about discrepancies in voter lists. Kumar, co-director of Lokniti at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), challenged the FIRs in the apex court, arguing that they constituted harassment for what he maintains was an unintentional error.
The controversy began on August 17th when Kumar posted a series of tweets comparing voter data across several Maharashtra constituencies. These posts, based on information later found to be misconstrued by his team, suggested significant fluctuations in voter numbers between the 2019 Lok Sabha elections and projected figures for the upcoming 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections. Specifically, Kumar’s posts claimed a dramatic increase in voters in Nashik West and Hingna, while simultaneously alleging a sharp decline in Ramtek and Devlali.
These claims quickly drew attention and prompted complaints to the Election Commission, leading to FIRs being filed against Kumar by the Sarakarvada Police Station in Nashik and the Ramtek Police Station in Nagpur. The charges include obstructing public duty, misrepresentation, and misleading the public under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Kumar subsequently deleted the contentious tweets and issued a public apology on X, acknowledging the error and attributing it to a misinterpretation of data by his team. He emphasized that he had no intention of disseminating misinformation.
Despite the apology and deletion of the posts, the legal proceedings continued, prompting Kumar to approach the Supreme Court. Represented by senior advocate Vivek Tankha, Kumar’s petition highlighted the swift corrective action taken and argued that the FIRs were disproportionate and amounted to an attempt to stifle academic inquiry. Tankha stressed the importance of protecting academic freedom and argued that a bona fide mistake should not be treated as a criminal offense.
A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai heard the petition and granted interim relief to Kumar, ordering a stay on any coercive action against him. The court also issued notices to the Maharashtra government, the state Director General of Police, and the complainants associated with the Election Commission, seeking their responses to Kumar’s petition.
The case raises important questions about the balance between freedom of expression, academic research, and the need to combat misinformation, especially in the context of elections. The Supreme Court’s intervention will likely set a precedent for how such cases are handled in the future. Kumar’s petition also seeks protection from any future FIRs that might arise from the same incident, further highlighting the potential chilling effect such actions can have on academic discourse and research.
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Kumar’s actions. While the Election Commission and the complainants view the posts as deliberate attempts to spread misinformation with potentially damaging consequences for the electoral process, Kumar maintains that it was an honest mistake, promptly rectified with a public apology. The Supreme Court’s final decision will likely hinge on whether the court finds evidence of malicious intent or deems the incident a genuine error. This case underscores the increasing scrutiny of social media posts and the potential legal ramifications of sharing inaccurate information, even if unintentional, particularly in sensitive areas like elections.
