Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash the FIR registered under Section 153-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the applicant, a folk singer, who uploaded a cartoon on her social media accounts which allegedly promoted enmity between different groups, a single-judge bench comprising of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., held that the applicant’s inclusion of specific dress details not related to the actual incident suggests an intent to attribute the incident to a particular group, potentially inciting enmity and disrupting harmony. The Court found that the applicant’s actions prima facie constituted promoting enmity between different groups, a punishable offence under Section 153-A IPC. The Court dismissed the application for quashment of FIR and stated that the applicant’s defense regarding intent should be examined during the trial.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the applicant, a folk singer, filed an application under Section 482 of CrPC to quash FIR registered under Section 153-A of the IPC at Police Station Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur. The FIR was filed following the applicant’s social media posts that included a cartoon depicting an incident where a person in an inebriated condition peed on another person from a reserved category. The cartoon showed a semi-naked person peeing on another person with specific dress details that were not accurate representations of the actual incident.
Parties’ Contentions
The applicant claimed that the post was a moral duty to highlight a gruesome incident. The applicant argued that the post does not constitute an offense under Section 153-A of the IPC as there was no intention to promote enmity. However, the State argued that the applicant’s post could promote disharmony, enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups and thus punishable under Section 153-A of IPC. The State highlighted that the inclusion of specific dress details not related to the actual incident suggests an intention to implicate a particular group. The State cited the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1, emphasising the need to balance free speech with the prohibition of hate speech.
Moot Point
-
Whether the applicant’s social media post constitutes an offense under Section 153-A of IPC?
-
Whether the addition of specific dress details in the cartoon indicates an attempt to promote enmity or ill-will among different groups?
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that Section 153-A of IPC deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony and penalizes actions that promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups. The Court noted the Supreme Court in Amish Devgan (Supra), held Hate speech is criminalized to protect dignity and ensure equality among different identities. The Supreme Court further held that speech promoting hatred against a targeted group, regardless of political or social context, could be punishable and the intent and context of the speech are crucial in determining whether it constitutes an offense under Section 153-A. The Supreme Court differentiated between free speech and hate speech and emphasized that criticism of government policy is protected unless it incites violence or public disorder.
The Court emphasised that the artistic expressions, including satire, must not incite enmity or hatred, and must be judged by their content and context. The Court noted that the cartoon posted by the applicant included elements that were not part of the actual incident, particularly clothing indicative of a specific ideology. The Court recognised the applicant’s additional details in the cartoon as indicative of an attempt to disrupt harmony.
“The addition of a particular dress was indicative of the fact that applicant wanted to communicate that the offence was committed by a person belonging to a particular ideology. Thus, it was a clear case of making an attempt to disrupt harmony and to provoke the feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will.”
The Court rejected applicant’s argument of exercising free speech under Article 19(1)(a), as such freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The Court held that the applicant’s social media post goes beyond the protection of free speech as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and falls within the reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2).
“Although an artist must have the liberty to criticize through satire but adding a particular dress in the cartoon cannot be said to be a satire. The attempt of the applicant was to involve a group of particular ideology without any basis. Therefore, it would not come within the purview of Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India and even a satirical expression may be prohibited under Article 19(2) of Constitution of India.”
Court’s Decision
The Court denied the application to quash the FIR and held that the applicant’s actions could incite enmity or hatred, making out an offense under Section 153-A of IPC. The Court opined that the question of the applicant’s intent and the accuracy of the depicted details are to be determined during the trial. The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case based on the evidence and arguments presented during the trial.
[Neha Singh Rathore v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4048, order dated 15-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Arubendra Singh Parihar, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Public Prosecutor, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
