Bombay High Court refuses to quash FIR against teacher who made mocking WhatsApp posts on Operation Sindoor
In a detailed order made available on July 29, 2025, a Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil observed that the woman's conduct, including sharing an image of the Indian flag burning and mocking the Prime Minister, pointed to a clear 'mens rea' and warranted a full investigation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Not a single world leader asked India to stop Operation Sindoor, PM tells Lok Sabha
'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 [Narendra Modi], 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 Bench observed.
The order further read that the petitioner is seen to be informing the complainant that her families belonged to neighbouring country Pakistan and she addressed India as 'Makkar'.
'This itself shows the mens rea behind the alleged crime committed by the petitioner. It is the petitioner's claim that her maternal and paternal families hail from Pakistan, in such a situation she makes such a derogatory statement against India will have some bearing on the situation then prevailing and as to the statement/s she made,' the order said.
Operation Sindoor will restart if Pakistan resorts to any misadventure, paused military action after achieving objectives: Rajnath Singh
Background of the case
Farah Deeba, a Pune resident, moved the Bombay High Court under Article 226 and Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash an FIR lodged against her on May 15, 2025, at Kalepadal Police Station. She is booked under Sections 152, 196, 197, 352, and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The FIR stated that both the petitioner and the complainant reside in the same Pune housing society, where a women-only WhatsApp group titled 'Sath Sath Margosa Ladies' was created by a resident. The group included around 380 female members from the society.
On May 7, 2025, following the Indian Armed Forces' Operation Sindoor that destroyed terrorist launch pads across the border, members of the WhatsApp group began posting congratulatory messages praising the Army. The petitioner responded by saying, 'We have TV and mobiles, the group shouldn't be used as a National News Channel.' When a member replied it was a time to show solidarity with the nation, Army and Prime Minister — ending with 'Jai Hind, Jai Bharat' — several others echoed the sentiment. The petitioner reacted with a laughing emoji.
Ruling dispensation lacked political will to carry out Operation Sindoor: Rahul Gandhi
Following this, several messages were exchanged on the group. The petitioner then posted additional messages and updated her WhatsApp status with a link to a Facebook video, which some known members objected to. Despite this, she continued to share messages allegedly critical of the Prime Minister and the country. These posts prompted the first informant to lodge the FIR against her.
Arguments
Advocate Harshad Sathe, appearing for the petitioner, argued that she was not in a sound mental state when the incident occurred. Upon realising that her messages had offended some members, including the complainant, she deleted them and issued an apology. He submitted that she has already suffered consequences, having been terminated from her teaching job. He also contended that the Section 41-A Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) notice was belatedly and improperly served via WhatsApp. Arguing that the FIR lacks merit and serves no purpose, he urged the court to quash it.
Opposing the arguments, APP M.M. Deshmukh argued that the FIR contains ample material to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 152, 196, 197, 352, and 353 of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner had uploaded a video showing the Indian national flag burning and used the term 'Makkar' to describe India in her WhatsApp status, while also reacting to pro-Army messages with a laughing emoji. The petitioner claimed her paternal and maternal families were from Pakistan, adding context to her statements.
Mr. Deshmukh contended that the offensive posts, including remarks against the Prime Minister, sparked unrest in the society, as evidenced by photographs of local residents protesting at the police station. Despite the petitioner's apology, the prosecution argued that significant damage had already been done. Given the ongoing investigation, she said the FIR could not be quashed at this stage.
Court observations
The Bench observed that the petitioner's statement had come immediately after the Indian Army successfully conducted the 'Operation Sindoor' therefore her statement and her own WhatsApp status had created a high possibility of stirring up with the emotions in group of people on the WhatsApp group and subsequently others going to the local police station and raising slogans and 'dharna' thereby insisting police to take action against the petitioner.
'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 realised those messages were controversial and posted them due to her deranged mental condition will not be helpful to her, as it will be duty of police to further investigate and find out in these circumstances where she herself claims that families of her father and mother are from the neighbouring country, Pakistan,' the order read.
The Bench cited several Supreme Court judgments to underline that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is an exception, not the norm. Referring to State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992), Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab (2020), and Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. (2021), the court reiterated that at the FIR stage, appreciation of evidence or conducting a 'mini-trial' is impermissible.
It also referenced CBI vs. Aryan Singh (2023), where the apex court cautioned High Courts against pre-trial evaluations while deciding quashing petitions.
In a recent case, the Allahabad High Court's view in Ashraf Khan alias Nisrat Khan vs. State of U.P. (2025), where bail was denied to an accused who had posted derogatory content against the Prime Minister and Indian military during an India-Pakistan conflict, the Bench observed that freedom of speech does not extend to content that disrespects national figures, incites disharmony, or undermines national unity and integrity. It noted the growing misuse of social media under the guise of free expression and agreed such actions threaten public order and deserve legal scrutiny.
'The police are yet to file charge sheet, therefore, at this stage, according to us, the FIR cannot be quashed. After hearing advocates for both sides and perusing the record, we had in fact given an opportunity to learned advocate appearing for petitioners, to withdraw the present petition and file an application for discharge before the trial court, if police files charge sheet. However, on the next day, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is inviting an Order on merits and does not wish to withdraw the writ petition,' the Bench observed.
After considering the contents of the FIR and the various documents on record, the court said, 'We are satisfied that it constitutes the ingredients of the alleged offences. Also taking into account the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, we find that there is no merit in the present Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, present petition stands dismissed,' the court observed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Silent protest held in Belagavi demanding release of arrested Kerala nuns
Belagavi: Hundreds of Christians gathered in Belagavi on Friday evening to stage a silent protest rally, demanding the immediate release of two Kerala-based Catholic nuns and a tribal youth, who were recently arrested in Chhattisgarh under controversial circumstances. Organised by the Catholic Association of Belgaum and other Christian organisations, the rally was led by Bishop Rev Dr Derek Fernandes. Around 400 participants, including priests, nuns, seminarians, and laypersons, assembled at the DC Compound at 4.40pm. The peaceful march concluded at the zilla panchayat CEO's office, where a memorandum addressed to the president of India, the prime minister, and the chief minister of Karnataka was submitted to deputy commissioner Mohammed Roshan. The memorandum highlighted the wrongful arrest of the nuns and the youth at Durg Railway Station on July 25 under Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Religious Freedom Act (1968), which pertains to religious conversion through force or inducement. They were accompanying three adult tribal women, aged 18–19, from Narayanpur to Agra for nursing jobs. The women all signed parental consent letters and carried valid identification. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Your IQ Is 140 If You Can Answer 10 of These Questions Correctly. IQ International Undo According to the memorandum, the arrests were prompted by pressure from a right-wing activist who falsely alleged forced conversion, sparking a mob protest. It is alleged that the charges were politically and communally motivated. Investigations and family statements later confirmed that the women travelled willingly and without any coercion. Speaking at the rally, Bishop Derek Fernandes condemned the arrests as 'unjust and frivolous,' asserting that Catholics are not involved in forced conversions. He also decried the physical assault on the nuns and warned against the rise of communal violence. "We demand the immediate release of the innocent and an end to baseless persecution. The govt must protect minority rights and uphold India's secular values," Bishop Fernandes stated. Deputy commissioner Mohammed Roshan, who received the memorandum, assured the gathering that appropriate action would be taken. Other notable participants included Rev Fr Philip Kutty, Rev Nooroddin Mulla, Clara Fernandes, Louis Rodrigues, Fr Pramod Kumar, Sr Pastor Ankalgi, and Sister Lourdes Joseph.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
'Trump Cannot Dictate': Putin & His Top Ally Unite Against U.S. Over Ukraine Ultimatum
Praniti Shinde Refuses to Apologise for 'Tamasha' Remark on Op Sindoor After PM Modi Takes Dig Congress MP Praniti Shinde's 'Tamasha' comment on Operation Sindoor sparked outrage across party lines, but she's not backing down. Even as PM Modi condemned her remarks as an insult to the 26 lives lost in the Pahalgam terror attack, Shinde doubled down: 'We'll apologise 1000 times to the victims' families, but never to the BJP's andh-bhakts and trolls.' Shinde further questioned the lack of transparency in Operation Sindoor, asking how many terrorists were neutralised, whether jets were lost, and what India truly gained. The BJP called her stand disrespectful to the armed forces. #operationsindoor #pranitishinde #tamasharemark #congressvspm #pmmodi #pahalgamattack #loksabhadebate #modivscongress #modivspranitishinde #andhbhakts #bjpcongressclash #indianpolitics #breakingnews #trending #mediaoptics #nationalsecurity #operationmahadev #modispeech #bjpvscongress #parliamentdrama #expungedremark #toi #toibharat #bharat #trending #breakingnews #indianews 9.8K views | 2 days ago
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
House of wars: on Parliament, Operation Sindoor discussion
The government and the Opposition crossed swords in Parliament during a discussion on Operation Sindoor this week. There was unanimity in praising India's armed forces, but there was little common ground beyond that. Operation Sindoor was India's military response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives. The elimination of three terrorists behind the attack, just before the parliamentary debate, helped the government's case. It told Parliament that these terrorists were Lashkar-e-Taiba members from Pakistan. The Narendra Modi government's strident approach seeks to change the behaviour of Pakistan and reassure its domestic audience. The success of this approach is debatable and the Opposition sought to put the government on the spot on both counts. A demonstrated willingness to use force against Pakistan in the event of a terrorism incident is a definitive turn in India's strategy, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) takes pride in that. But there is no evidence yet that it is working though there has been chest thumping around it by the ruling party. The discussion in Parliament barely addressed the implications of this approach, which is being touted as the new normal. The Opposition and the government agreed on the need to punish Pakistan, and also disagreed on who would do it better. The government claimed success in meeting its objectives of launching a military operation and denied that it had acted under pressure in ending the war. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi demanded a pointed response to repeated claims by U.S. President Donald Trump that he mediated the ceasefire but the Prime Minister evaded a direct response on it. The government contradicts itself when it says that the operation was a success, and that it is continuing. It is also exasperating to hear a party that is now in its eleventh year of uninterrupted power, blame people who passed away decades ago for any challenge that India faces now. There was little self-reflection regarding the lapses that led to the terrorism incident, and whether and how the government plans to address them. The government had sent joint teams including several MPs from the Opposition abroad to garner support for India in the aftermath of the operation, but that sign of statesmanship was a short-lived aberration, as it turns out. The world is changing rapidly and India's capacity to navigate those changes will be largely determined by its own character. Questioning the patriotism of political opponents is an easy route to take to evade tough questions, but the BJP must realise that such an approach has diminishing returns.
