The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected a petition filed by Mohammad Bilal, who sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against him for allegedly posting offensive remarks about Lord Ram, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, and Hinduism on his Instagram account. The FIR, dated August 17, 2023, was registered at a police station in Satna under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Mohammad Bilal contended that his Instagram account was hacked just two days before the offensive post appeared, and he claimed that someone else was responsible for the objectionable content. However, the court found that Bilal’s defense lacked credibility. Justice GS Ahluwalia, presiding over the case, noted that the complainant had approached Bilal to inquire about the offensive post. Instead of providing a reasonable explanation regarding the alleged hacking, Bilal reportedly responded by abusing and humiliating the complainant, thereby hurting his religious sentiments.
The judge emphasized that this behavior contradicted Mohammad Bilal’s claim that he was not responsible for the post. The court’s ruling pointed out that the very admission of posting the offensive content on his Instagram account by Mohammad Bilal undermined his defense. “This conduct of the petitioner indicates that the defense of uploading the offensive post on his Instagram account by somebody else is incorrect,” the judge stated in the order issued last month.
Furthermore, the court clarified that the correctness of the allegations made in the FIR could not be evaluated at this stage. The judge remarked, “Considering the fact that the FIR in question discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, no case is made out warranting interference.” The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reinforces the legal stance on the responsibilities associated with social media usage, particularly concerning the potential for offending religious sentiments.
As this case unfolds, it highlights the increasing scrutiny of online behavior and the legal implications that individuals may face when using social media platforms. The court’s decision serves as a reminder of the significant impact that digital communications can have on societal harmony and the importance of exercising caution when posting content that could be construed as offensive or inflammatory. The implications of this ruling could set a precedent for future cases involving similar allegations in the digital space.
