“Interestingly, the person, who was allegedly intentionally insulted by the petitioner, thereby being provoked to breach the public peace or commit any other offence, never came forward to lodge a complaint…” These words from Justice Sandeep Sharma encapsulate the essence of a recent ruling by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
The court quashed an FIR against Thakar Singh Bharmouri, who was accused of making derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during an election rally on October 3, 2021. Justice Sharma pointed out that vague accusations do not constitute a criminal offense without specific descriptions of the language used.
In his ruling, Justice Sharma noted, “No material worth credence has been adduced on record to suggest that petitioner intentionally, with a view to cause public disruption, hurled abuses and made uncalled for remarks against the Hon’ble Prime Minister.” This statement underscores the court’s emphasis on the need for concrete evidence in such matters.
The FIR was initiated following an email complaint from a member of the Bharatiya Janta Party, not directly from Prime Minister Modi himself. The court highlighted that the primary ingredient to invoke Section 504 IPC was missing in this case.
Justice Sharma further remarked, “…there is no allegation that while using absurd language and hurling abuses at the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, petitioner ever attempted to promote enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language…”
The court also stated that to invoke Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, specific grounds must be proven, which were notably absent in this instance.
Ultimately, the court observed that there was no evidence of promoting enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens. The petitioner was formally acquitted of the charges after the FIR was quashed.
Justice Sharma concluded, “The High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 must be exercised to prevent the judicial process from being used as a weapon of harassment in cases where a conviction is highly unlikely.” This ruling sets a significant precedent in the realm of political speech and legal accountability.
