MP Court rejects plea seeking cancellation of hate speech FIR over Instagram post insulting Lord Ram, Hindu religion

On Tuesday, October 1, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed Mohammed Bilal’s plea seeking quashing of an FIR filed against him under Section 153A IPC for uploading anti-Hindu content on his Instagram account. Bilal said the objectionable post posted from his Instagram account, abusing Lord Rama and the Hindu religion, was not posted by him but by someone else who ‘hacked’ his account. The Court rejected the plea, saying the man’s defense that the message was uploaded by hacking his account could not be taken into account “at this stage”.

According to the legal reports, Section 153A of the IPC prohibits encouraging enmity between different groups on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language and other factors, as well as committing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

In its decision, a single bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia said: “The petitioner has admitted that an objectionable message was uploaded on his Instagram account. The only question to be considered now is whether it was an intentional act on the part of the petitioner or someone else who uploaded the said post by hacking his Instagram account. It is a defense of the petitioner, which cannot be considered at this stage.”

Team OpIndia has obtained the original complaint document in the case. The case against the suspect, identified as Mohammed Bilal, was filed by complainant Sujan. The complainant in the case mentioned that one of Sujan’s friends showed him an Instagram post made by Bilal. The post used insulting words for Lord Ram and Hindu culture. Later, Sujan and his friend confronted Bilal through the mail. However, instead of explaining the entire situation, Bilal abused the complainant and his friend.

The court stated that after examining the FIR, it became clear that the complainant had asked the petitioner why the ‘offensive post’ was uploaded on his Instagram account.

“Instead of explaining that the above message was uploaded by someone else by hacking his account, the petitioner started abusing and humiliating the complainant and also hurting his religious sentiments,” the judgment said, adding that the conduct of the petitioner shows that his defense was inappropriate. .

“This conduct of the petitioner indicates that the defense of someone else’s uploading the offending post to his Instagram account is flawed. Whatever it may be. Since the petitioner himself admitted that he uploaded an objectionable message on his Instagram account, he had no right to respond to the complainant in the manner he had done. Whether the allegations in the FIR are correct or not cannot be assessed at this stage,” the court said.

“The defense of the suspect cannot be taken into account. Considering that the FIR in question discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, there is no case which justifies interference,” the Supreme Court said, dismissing the plea.

The petitioner’s lawyer stated that on August 15, 2023, “some persons” hacked the petitioner’s Instagram account and uploaded an offensive image, thereby hurting the sentiments of another religion. He alleged that the petitioner had filed a written complaint with the relevant police station on the same day, alleging that an unknown person had uploaded an inflammatory post to his Instagram account. The first complaint in the case was filed on August 17, 2023.

However, on the same day, an FIR was lodged for an offense under IPC Sections 294 (obscene acts and songs), 153-A, 295(A) (intentional and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by the religion or religious beliefs) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.