
The Bombay High Court refused to overturn an FIR against a Muslim teacher hailing from Maharashtra’s Pune district, who reportedly reacted with a laughing face emoji to messages admiring Operation Sindoor.
The 46-year-old teacher, Farah Deeba, allegedly posted a WhatsApp status showing a clip of Prime Minister Narendra Modi sitting on a rocket.
Deeba, who holds a Master’s in English and a B.Ed degree, sparked unrest in her housing society WhatsApp group over her Operation Sindoor post.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil said that such acts would not only invite more unlawful demeanours against the sovereignty, integrity, and unity of India, but also entice tensions among religious groups.
Her actions, which triggered legal actions and immediate repercussions from her fellow residents, also led to the Bombay High Court refusing to quash the FIR, stating that it is not a matter of trivial actions.
In an already disturbed socio-political environment of the country, the high court expressed that such misbehaviour cannot be taken as an isolated matter or “as mere expressions of individual opinion” adding that the “prima facie appear to disturb public peace and harmony.”
“Her remarks were made immediately following the Indian Army’s successful execution of Operation Sindoor. As a result, both her statement and WhatsApp status significantly heightened the risk of provoking emotional responses within the group, ultimately leading some individuals to approach the local police station, raise slogans, and stage a dharna,” the bench observed.
Provisions of Section 152 (endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India), 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 197 (assertions that are prejudicial to national integration), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the BNS 2023 was addressed in regard to the petitioner’s actions.
To the court, the petitioner’s apology was still not enough, as for them, “innumerable damage” had already occurred. Although the bench took into account her educational background, the judges have rejected this assertion, stating that a well-educated person like her should think about the pros and cons of her actions before putting up a message on a social group.
Remarking on the petitioner’s confirmation about her lineage from Pakistan and another incident where she called India “makkar (dishonest)”, the bench acknowledges her mens rea to be biased, which is contradictory to her claims of being mentally unwell at the time of the act.
The judges have said that freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution does not extend to “such acts which disrespect high dignitaries and create disharmony among citizens,” claiming that such acts are harmful in disturbing the national peace and unity.