The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a petition seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against a man accused of circulating a controversial WhatsApp message regarding beef consumption and Hindu religious practices.
On Thursday, a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan issued a notice to the Madhya Pradesh Police and other relevant parties. The move comes after the petitioner, Buddha Prakash Bouddha, challenged a decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had refused to dismiss the criminal proceedings against him.
Background of the Controversy
The legal battle stems from a seven-page WhatsApp message allegedly posted by Bouddha. According to police records, the message contained claims that “consuming beef was essential to being a good Hindu” and asserted that bull sacrifices and meat consumption were “obligatory” on specific occasions.
The complaint further alleged that the messages contained “derogatory and misleading” remarks about the Brahmin community, claiming that members of the community historically consumed bovine meat and that cows and bulls were slaughtered during various religious ceremonies.
High Court’s Refusal to Quash FIR
Prior to approaching the top court, Bouddha sought relief from the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, the High Court dismissed his plea, maintaining that the allegations, if taken at face value, prima facie established the ingredients of the offences charged.
“The present matter involves allegations of publication or circulation of material capable of hurting religious sentiments or promoting disharmony,” the High Court had observed in its order.
Charges Invoked
The Madhya Pradesh Police registered the FIR against Bouddha under several rigorous sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:
- Section 196(1)(b): Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or caste.
- Section 299: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
- Section 353(1)(c) and 353(2): Statements conducing to public mischief.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the plea suggests a forthcoming judicial scrutiny into whether such social media posts constitute a criminal offense or fall within the ambit of protected speech and historical commentary.
