Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Woman Who Reacted With 'Laughing Emoji' To Messages Praising Operation Sindoor

Sending a 'laughing emoji' to the celebrations of 'Operation Sindoor' in a WhatsApp group, putting a video status of Indian flag burning and that of Prime Minister sitting on a rocket, would attract offences of endangering sovereignty, integrity and unity of India and also promoting enmity between two groups, the Bombay High Court held today (July 29).

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil refused to quash an FIR lodged against one Farah Deeba (46), a teacher by profession, who had created a stir in Pune after she reacted with a 'laughing emoji' in her society's WhatsApp group, to the messages sent by other residents, applauding the Operation Sindoor. She also later on posted a WhatsApp Status showing a video of India's national flag burning and another one of PM Narendra Modi, sitting on a rocket. 

"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, has been shown as sitting on a rocket and the Indian National flag shown burning, attracts the provisions of Section 152 (endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India), 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 197 (assertions that are prejudicial to national integration), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the BNS 2023," the bench said in the order. 

The judges further noted that the Petitioner had informed the Complainant that her families (both paternal and maternal side) belonged to neighbouring country Pakistan and thus she addressed the Nation (India) as 'Makkar'.

"This itself shows the mens rea behind the alleged crime committed by the Petitioner," the bench said. 

The bench said that even if the Petitioner tendered her apology to the Complainant, however, the "innumerable damage" was already been caused by the Petitioner's messages which were circulated.

"The unrest in the local areas after the message of the Petitioner, can be seen from the photographs which are exhibited to the Petition, which shows group of people have approached local police station," the bench observed. 

The judges further took into account the fact that Deeba held a Masters Degree in English and also a B. Ed. Degree and has contested that her mental health at the relevant time was not well and thus, she made the objectionable acts. 

"It is the petitioner's claim that her maternal and paternal families hail from Pakistan, in such a situation she making such a derogatory statement against India will have some bearing on the situation then prevailing and as to the statement/s she made. Her statement had come immediately after the Indian army successfully conducted the 'Operation Sindoor' therefore her such 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," the judges said. 

Further, the bench said, "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."

In its 10-page judgment, the bench referred to the judgment by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Asharaf Khan Alias Nisrat Khan vs State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was observed that the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution does not extend to such acts which disrespect high dignitaries and create disharmony among citizens.

"It has become a fashion among certain groups of people to misuse social media in the garb of "Freedom of Speech and Expression" by making baseless allegations against high dignitaries, posting such material that creates hatred and disharmony among the people. Such actions are detrimental to national unity and public order. Such action shows disrespect not only against Prime Minister of country but also against the Indian Military and its officers. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashraf Khan," the bench observed. 

Appearance:

Advocates Harshad Sathe and Saurabh Bhutala appeared for the Petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor Mrunmayee Deshmukh represented the State.

Case Title: Farah Deeba vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 3257 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment