MP High Court denies relief to man accused of sharing WhatsApp text that consuming beef essential to be good Hindu

Case

The prosecution had alleged that the accused, Buddha Prakash Bouddha had posted on a seven-page message on WhatsApp on September 26 containing derogatory and misleading comments regarding the Hindu religion and the Brahmin community.

It was further alleged that the messages claimed ‘consuming beef was essential to being a good Hindu and bull sacrifices and meat consumption were obligatory on certain occasions.’ The messages also claimed that ‘Brahmins regularly consumed bovine meat, and cows and bulls were allegedly slaughtered in various religious ceremonies.’

Following this, an FIR was registered against the man under Sections 196(1)(b) (promotion of enmity between groups), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 353(1)(c) and 353(2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of BNS.

Arguments

Advocate Aman Raghuwanshi, counsel for the accused, submitted that the accused is the administrator of the WhatsApp group titled “B.P. Bouddh Patrakar News”. He submitted that said message was posted in good faith, without any malicious or deliberate intention to outrage the religious feelings.

He further argued that the post was academic in nature, sourced from a published literary work, and was shared within a limited, non-public, voluntarily joined forum. It was also added that the FIR was registered at the behest of the local police authorities due to the accused’s independent and critical reporting on police excesses.

The counsel for the accused also pointed out that the message was shared from a book authored by Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma (Agyaat), which has not been banned by the central or state government.

Opposing the submissions, advocate Padamshri Agarwal, appearing for the prosecution, submitted that the allegations in the complaint indicated ‘intentional publication of highly inflammatory and provocative material capable of outraging religious sentiments and disturbing public tranquility’.

Court’s Ruling

At the outset the court noted that the allegations disclosed prima facie ingredients of the offences invoked.

The court said, “Whether the Petitioner acted with deliberate and malicious intention, whether the extract was quoted in good faith, and whether the content was merely academic or capable of disturbing public tranquillity and whether the Petitioner’s post oversteps the permissible limits of free speech are the matters to be examined based on evidence collected during investigation.”

These are not issues that can be adjudicated at this preliminary stage, the court said.

The court observed that the mere assertion of FIR being a counterblast to earlier journalistic reports cannot, in itself, justify quashing of the FIR when the allegations disclose cognizable offences.

The court, therefore, dismissed the petition.

“This Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed,” it held.