As per the legal reports, Section 153A of the IPC prohibits encouraging animosity between various groups on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, domicile, language, and other factors, as well as engaging in acts that are detrimental to the maintenance of harmony.
In its decision, a single-judge panel of Justice GS Ahluwalia stated, “The petitioner has admitted that an offensive post was uploaded on his Instagram account. Now, the only question for consideration is whether it was a deliberate act on the part of the petitioner or somebody 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 obtained the original complaint document in the case. The case against the accused identified as Mohammed Bilal was filed by complainant Sujan. The complainant in the case mentioned that one of the friends of Sujan showed him an Instagram post that was posted by Bilal. The post used abusive words for Lord Ram and Hindu culture. Later Sujan and his friend confronted Bilal over the post. However, Bilal instead of explaining the entire situation, abused the complainant and his friend.
The court stated that after reviewing the FIR, it became obvious that the complainant had asked the petitioner why the “offensive post” had been uploaded on his Instagram account.
“Instead of explaining that the abovementioned post was uploaded by someone else by hacking his account, the petitioner began abusing and humiliating the complainant and also hurt his religious feelings,” the judgment stated, adding that the petitioner’s behavior shows that his defense was not appropriate.
“This conduct of the petitioner indicates that the defense of uploading the offensive post on his Instagram account by somebody else is incorrect. Be that whatever it may be. Since uploading of an offensive post on his Instagram account has been admitted by the petitioner himself, therefore, he had no right to react in a manner in which it was done with the complainant. Whether allegations made in the FIR are correct or not cannot be considered at this stage,” the court said.
“The accused’s defense cannot be taken into account. Considering the fact that the FIR in question discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, no case is made out warranting interference,” the High Court stated, rejecting the petition.
The petitioner’s attorney stated that on August 15th, 2023, “some persons” hacked the petitioner’s Instagram account and uploaded an objectionable image, thereby hurting the feelings of another religion. He contended that on the same day, the petitioner filed a written complaint with the relevant police station, alleging that an unknown person had uploaded an inflammatory post to his Instagram account. On August 17th, 2023, the first complaint in the case was filed.
However, on the same day, an FIR was filed for an offense under IPC Sections 294 (obscene acts and songs), 153-A, 295(A) (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), and the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
