The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Pune woman seeking to quash an FIR registered against her over controversial WhatsApp messages and status updates following the Indian Army’s Operation Sindoor.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition filed by Farah Deeba, a 46-year-old resident of Pune, who had sought to quash an FIR registered against her over controversial WhatsApp messages and status updates following Operation Sindoor, a recent Indian Armed Forces operation targeting terrorist launch pads in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
The division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil observed that Deeba’s actions, including a laughing emoji reaction to pro-military posts, a WhatsApp status video showing the Prime Minister riding a rocket alongside a burning Indian flag, and messages identifying herself with Pakistan while referring to India as “Makkar,” reflected mens rea, or criminal intent.
The court said, “What is expected of a prudent person is that, before putting up any kind of message on social groups, a person like the petitioner—who is educated and a 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).”
The FIR, filed at Kalepadal Police Station in Pune, invokes multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The case emerged from a WhatsApp group named Sath Sath Margosa Ladies, comprising women residents of the Margosa Heights residential complex in Pune.
According to the complaint, after Operation Sindoor was launched on May 7, several group members expressed admiration for the Indian Armed Forces. Deeba allegedly responded with a laughing emoji, objected to the group being used for patriotic discussions, and later posted a video link from Facebook critical of the Prime Minister. She is also accused of uploading a WhatsApp status featuring a burning Indian flag and making disparaging comments against the country.
Her lawyer, advocate Harshad Sathe, argued that Deeba was not mentally sound at the time of the incident, had removed the posts shortly afterward, and had issued an apology. He noted that she had already been dismissed from her teaching job and claimed procedural lapses in the issuance of notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC.
The bench, however, found sufficient grounds for investigation, noting that the petitioner’s conduct, especially in the immediate aftermath of a sensitive military operation, was capable of disturbing public sentiment and attracting penal consequences under BNS.
Referring to a recent ruling of the Allahabad High Court, the Bombay High Court reiterated that freedom of speech does not extend to derogatory commentary against the Prime Minister or Armed Forces when such speech could disrupt national harmony or incite disharmony.
