MP High Court refuses relief to man booked over WhatsApp claim that beef consumption essential to being Hindu

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently refused to quash a case against a man accused of circulating a WhatsApp message claiming that eating beef was essential to being a good Hindu and that Brahmins regularly consumed bovine meat [Buddha Prakash Bouddha v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed that the matter involved allegations of circulating material hurting religious sentiments or promoting disharmony.

Whether the content was merely academic or the post overstepped the permissible limits of free speech needs to be examined based on evidence collected during investigation, the Court said.

However, it added that investigation has to proceed unhindered when the First Information Report (FIR) discloses commission of cognizable offences.

"The allegations contained in the impugned FIR, when taken at their face value, disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences invoked," the Court said, as it dismissed the plea seeking quashing of the FIR.

The accused Buddha Prakash Bouddha was booked on September 27 on a complaint stating that he runs a WhatsApp group “B P Bauddh Patrakar News Group” in which he had posted a message containing derogatory and misleading comments about Hindu religion and Brahmin community.

"The forwarded message included assertions relating to ancient rituals, such as claims that consuming beef was essential to being a good Hindu, bull sacrifices and meat consumption were obligatory on certain occasions, Brahmins regularly consumed bovine meat, and cows and bulls were allegedly slaughtered in various religious ceremonies. The message also contained several offensive remarks targeting the Brahmin community. As the cow is held in high reverence in Hinduism, the said post has deeply hurt his religious sentiments as well as other Hindu and Brahmin community members," the complainant said.

Bouddha moved the Court seeking quashing of the FIR. His counsel argued that he had only posted certain excerpts from a book written by Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma (Agyaat).

"The post was purely academic in nature, sourced from a published literary work, and was shared within a limited, non-public, voluntarily joined forum," the counsel said.

It was also argued that the case was registered at the behest of the local police authorities due to the petitioner’s independent and critical reporting on police excesses.

On the other hand, the State argued that allegations in the complaint clearly indicated intentional publication of highly inflammatory and provocative material, capable of outraging religious sentiments and disturbing public tranquility.

Considering the arguments, the Court said whether the accused acted with deliberate and malicious intention or posted the extract in good faith, cannot be examined at this stage.

"These are not issues that can be adjudicated at this preliminary stage. The plea of mala fides asserted by the Petitioner is also a question of fact, which would require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Article 226 at the stage of investigation. The mere assertion that the FIR is a counterblast to earlier journalistic reports cannot, in itself, justify quashing of the FIR when the allegations otherwise disclose cognizable offences," the Court said.

Concluding that no case was made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the plea.

Advocate Aman Raghuwanshi represented the petitioner.

Advocate Padamshri Agarwal appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]