Social Media Posts and Communal Harmony

Source: Allahabad High Court 

 Why in News?

The bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Pramod Kumar Srivastava of Allahabad High Court in the case of Afaq Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others (2025) dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered for sending WhatsApp messages that allegedly disturbed communal harmony and outraged religious feelings. 

• The Court observed that even a WhatsApp message not explicitly referring to religion may, through its 'unsaid' words and 'subtle' message, promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between communities. 

 What was the Background of Afaq Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others (2025) Case? 

• On 23.07.2025, Case Crime No.414 of 2025 was registered against Arif (petitioner's brother) under Sections 296, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor. 
• During investigation on 24.07.2025, additional sections were added: Sections 123, 64(1), 318(4) and 336(3) BNS, besides Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. 
• Arif was arrested and produced before the Court on allegations of religious conversion of women, though no specific woman was named in the FIR. 
• Following his brother's arrest, the petitioner Afaq Ahmad sent WhatsApp messages to multiple individuals expressing resentment about the arrest. 
• On 30.07.2025, one Ameer Azam informed Sub-Inspector Prashant Singh that he had received an inflammatory WhatsApp message from the petitioner (using WhatsApp No. 9548080007) about seven days earlier. 
• Azam had saved a screenshot of the message before it was deleted by a timer in the app and shared it with the police. 
• The informant took five screenshots and seized Azam's mobile device, placing it in a sealed transparent container. 
• FIR No.421 of 2025 was registered against Afaq Ahmad under Sections 299 and 353(3) BNS, alleging that he sent inflammatory messages to disturb communal harmony and outrage religious feelings. 
• The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the FIR. 

 What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that while the WhatsApp post may not speak per se about religion, it definitely conveyed an underlying and subtle message that the petitioner's brother was targeted in a false case because of belonging to a particular religious community. 
• The Court held that these "unsaid words" in the message would prima facie outrage religious feelings of a class of citizens from a particular community who would think they are being targeted because of their religious identity. 
• Even if no religious feelings were directly outraged, the message by its unsaid words was likely to create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between religious communities. 
• Members of a particular community could think they are being targeted by members of another religious community through abuse of the legal process. 
• The Court observed that while the act may not fall within the mischief of Section 353(3) BNS, it would prima facie attract Section 353(2) BNS. 
• Bearing in mind the overall context of the FIR and the manner in which the petitioner sent WhatsApp messages to a multitude of persons with such potential, the Court denied relief under Article 226. 
• The petition was dismissed.  

 What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Referred to ? 

Section 353 BNS - Statements Conducing to Public Mischief: 

• Section 353(1) punishes making, publishing or circulating statements, false information, rumours or reports (including through electronic means) that: 
  • May cause military personnel to mutiny or fail in duty; or 
  • May cause public fear or alarm inducing offences against the State or public tranquillity; or 
  • May incite one class/community to commit offences against another class/community. 
• Section 353(2) specifically targets statements or reports containing false information, rumours or alarming news (including through electronic means) that create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language, regional groups, castes or communities on any ground whatsoever. 
• Section 353(3) provides enhanced punishment when offences under sub-section (2) are committed in places of worship or during religious ceremonies (imprisonment up to five years plus fine). 
• Punishment: Generally imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both (except sub-section 3). 
• Exception: No offence if the person had reasonable grounds for believing the statement was true and acted in good faith without malicious intent. 

Section 299 BNS - Deliberate and Malicious Acts Intended to Outrage

Religious Feelings: 

• Offence: Insulting or attempting to insult the religion or religious beliefs of any class of citizens of India with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging their religious feelings. 
• Means: The insult can be made through: 
  • Words (spoken or written) 
  • Signs 
  • Visible representations 
  • Electronic means 
  • Any other method 
• Essential Elements: 
  • Deliberate and malicious intention 
  • Intent to outrage religious feelings 
  • Targeting any class of citizens of India 
• Punishment: Imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple) for a term up to three years, or fine, or both.