Bombay High Court refuses to quash FIR for reacting with laughing emoji to Operation Sindoor praise

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a case against a Pune woman who reacted with a laughing emoji to messages praising the Indian Army’s ‘Operation Sindoor’ in her housing society’s WhatsApp group. [Farah Deeba v State of Maharashtra]

The petitioner Farah Deeba later also posted content deemed offensive to the Prime Minister and the Indian National Flag on her WhatsApp status.

The Court observed that her actions prima facie constituted offences under Sections 152 (act endangering sovereignty and integrity), 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), 197(Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 352 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 353(Statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

A Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh Patil, while dismissing the petitioner's plea to quash the first information report (FIR), observed that there was a prima facie case against her.

“In our view, the acts of the Petitioner, initially reacting with a laughing emoji, when others in the WhatsApp group were applauding the steps taken by the Indian Government and the Indian Army with respect to ‘Operation Sindoor’ and thereafter, she on her WhatsApp status, uploaded a video wherein the Prime Minister of India, has been shown as sitting on a rocket and the Indian National flag shown burning, attracts the provisions of Section 152 , 196 , 197 , 352 and 353 of the BNS 2023,” the Court said.

The FIR against Deeba was lodged at Kalepadal Police Station in Pune, on a complaint by a fellow resident of the same society.

It was filed after she allegedly responded with a laughing emoji on a WhatsApp group called ‘Sath Sath Margosa Ladies', when members praised the Indian Army for its cross-border strike codenamed ‘Operation Sindoor’ on May 7.

The group comprised around 380 women residents of Margosa Heights, Pune. Following the reaction, Deeba reportedly shared a Facebook video via WhatsApp status which showed the Prime Minister sitting on a rocket and the Indian flag burning.

She also allegedly referred to India as “Makkar” and noted that both her maternal and paternal families hailed from Pakistan. These messages reportedly led to unrest in the local area, with residents staging a protest and demanding police action.

Challenging the FIR, Deeba argued that she had not been in a stable mental condition when she made the posts. Her counsel submitted that she had apologized for the messages and deleted them once she realized they were not well received.

It was further contended that she had already suffered professionally, having been terminated from her teaching job.

The Court rejected these arguments and observed that the petitioner should have avoided reacting with a laughing emoji when others were heaping praises on the Indian Army.

“The intention of the petitioner becomes an essential ingredient to be judged with the kind of language she has used for India and more particularly when the whole country was feeling proud of our army. She could have probably avoided reacting with a laughing emoji, when others were celebrating the event of successful mission of the Indian Army of ‘Operation Sindoor’.”

The Court also observed that as a prudent and educated person, she should have considered the repercussions before posting such content, and cannot now take the defence that she was in a deranged mental condition at the time.

“What is expected of a prudent person is that, before putting up any kind of message on social group, a person like the petitioner who is educated and teacher by profession should also think about the pros and cons which might occur due to sending online messages through her social media account (WhatsApp). In such a situation, she subsequently adopting a defence that, she has now realized those messages were controversial and posted them due to her deranged mental condition will not be helpful to her,” the Court said.

Citing a recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court in a similar case, the bench agreed with the concern over abuse of social media.

“It has become a fashion among certain groups of people to misuse social media in the garb of ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ by making baseless allegations against high dignitaries, posting such material that creates hatred and disharmony among the people. Such actions are detrimental to national unity and public order. Such action shows disrespect not only against Prime Minister of country but also against the Indian Military and its officers. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashraf Khan,” the Bench opined.

It concluded that there was prima facie material for investigation and refused to interfere at the pre-chargesheet stage.

Advocate Harshad Sathe instructed by advocate Saurabh Bhutala appeared for Farah Deeba.

Additional Public Prosecutor MM Deshmukh appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]