Madras High Court quashes FIR against man booked for calling Late Gen. Bipin Rawat “mercenary of fascists"

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed a first information report (FIR) registered against a man for a Facebook post labelling late Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Bipin Rawat “mercenary of the fascists” [G. Sivarajaboopathi v. The State]..- In reaction to the former CDS’s demise, the petitioner made a Facebook post;- The post referred to General Rawat as a “mercenary of the fascists”;- An FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the cognisable offences of provoking different groups, promoting enmity and intentional insult;- A single-Judge of the High Court did not find that essential ingredients of the offences were fulfilled;- The FIR was quashed with critical remarks on the petitioner’s conduct by the judge..Justice GR Swaminathan acknowledged that the conduct of the petitioner would certainly outrage the moral sense of most people, yet he stated that the issue must be adjudicated on objective criteria.“Looked at from any angle, the essential ingredients constituting the offences of Sections 153, 504 and 505(2) of IPC are absent in this case. The impugned FIR is not maintainable. It is quashed,” he thus held..On the demise of Gen. Rawat, the petitioner took to Facebook posting the following: “It is disgrace to shed tears for “Dictator Bipin Rawat”, the mercenary of the fascists.”Resulting from this post, an FIR was registered against him for the offences of wantonly giving provocation between different groups, promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes and intentional insult..Before deciding on the merits of the case, the single-judge highlighted the heart-wrenching tragedy of the General’s death. He stated that it was nothing short of a national calamity.“According to the report of the rescuers, the General was alive and that he identified himself and that he died while being taken to hospital. That makes his end all the more heart-wrenching,” Justice Swaminathan observed..To examine the issue of wanton provocation, the Judge opined that if the offending words had been uttered near a military cantonment or an armed forces gathering, they would have been of a riotous nature. However, only a Facebook post did not make it a cognisable offence.“Making an uncivil remark directed against a particular individual in the social media in the facts and circumstances of the case would certainly not lead to the situation contemplated by Section 153 of IPC,” the Court underscored..On the offence of intentional insult, the Court discussed the case of Muniswami Naicker v. P Kanniappa Naicker in which the Madras High Court had held that “the gravamen of the offence under Section 504 of IPC lies in the utterer provoking the victim by his words to commit an immediate breach of the peace.. When the accused uttered the abuse in the absence of the complainant, he cannot be convicted under Section 504 of IPC unless he asked his hearers to convey it to the complainant.”Therefore, it was held that the offence under Section 504 was only intended to cover one-on-one interactions..The accusation of promoting enmity was summarily rejected by the Court reasoning that the petitioner’s post did not involve two groups therefore, the penal provision was not attracted..The FIR was accordingly quashed..However, before parting with the order, the judge had a quotation for the petitioner, “The evil of hatred is not of a nature to be desired by one even in sport.”Justice Swaminathan opined that the way the petitioner reacted to the General’s death was not in consonance with Tamil culture..Advocate G Prabhu Rajadurai appeared for the petitioner while the respondents were represented by Additional Public Prosecutor T Senthil Kumar and advocate M Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy..[Read Order]