WhatsApp Message Alleging Targeting Of Particular Religious Group May Constitute Offence Of Promoting Enmity U/S 353(2) BNS: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava made this observation while refusing to quash an FIR lodged against petitioner (Afaq Ahmad) who had allegedly forwarded an inflammatory message to several individuals on WhatsApp.

For context, in the alleged message, the petitioner had conveyed a subtle message that his brother had been targeted in a false case, because of him belonging to a particular religious community.

Before the HC, The applicant's counsel argued that in the alleged post, only resentment was shown by the petitioner about his brother's arrest and the same was not intended to disturb public peace, tranquility or communal harmony in any manner.

The Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, opposed the motion to admit the petition to hearing.

At the outset, the bench noted that though the message did not speak per se about religion, it conveyed an underlying and subtle message that his brother has been targeted in a false case, because of him belonging to a particular religious community.

The bench added that those unsaid words "would prima facie outrage religious feelings of a class of citizens hailing from a particular community, who would think that they are being targeted because of belonging to a particular religious community".

"Quite apart, and, even if one were to think that no religious feelings of a class of citizens or community have been outraged, per se by the WhatsApp message, it is certainly a message, which, by its unsaid words, is likely to create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between religious communities, where members of a particular community, in the first instance, could think that they are being targeted by members of another religious community by abusing the process of law", the bench observed.

The Court observed that sending such a message to multiple persons, alleging targeting of members of one religious group, prima facie attracts the ingredients of Section 353 (2) of the BNS, if not Section 353 (3) BNS.

Thus, opining that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, interdicting investigation in any manner or any of its processes, the bench dismissed the plea.

Advocate Syed Shahnawaz Shah appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Government Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari appeared for the respondents