Madhya Pradesh High Court refuses to quash FIR against singer Neha Singh Rathore; questions use of RSS shorts in cartoon

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently refused to quash the criminal case registered against Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore over a tweet related to a viral video in which a man was seen urinating on a tribal labourer in Sidhi [Neha Singh Rathore vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr]..Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia questioned why Rathore had added the dress of a “particular ideology” - referring to Khaki shorts of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - in the cartoon posted on social media when the person accused of urinating on the member of reserved category had not worn the same dress.“Since the cartoon which was uploaded by the applicant on her Twitter and Instagram account was not in accordance with the incident which had taken place and certain additional things were added by the applicant on her own, this Court is of considered opinion that it cannot be said that the applicant had uploaded the cartoon by exercising her fundamental right of free speech and expression,” the Court said..Although an artist must have the liberty to criticize through satire but adding a particular dress in the cartoon cannot be said to be a satireJustice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, Madhya Pradesh High Court.The Court added that the fundamental right of free speech and expression is not an absolute right but is subject to reasonable restrictions. “Although an artist must have the liberty to criticize through satire but adding a particular dress in the cartoon cannot be said to be a satire. The attempt of the applicant was to involve a group of particular ideology without any basis. Therefore, it would not come within the purview of Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India and even a satirical expression may be prohibited under Article 19(2) of Constitution of India,” it said..The Uttar Pradesh-based folk singer was booked under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) last year after she had posted the cartoon showing a person is a semi-naked condition peeing on another person sitting on the floor. A half pant of yellowish brown (khaki) was also shown lying on the floor, in the cartoon.This was to symbolise the political leanings of the accused Parvesh Shukla who was allegedly a Bharatiya Janata Party worker. The counsel for Rathore sought quashing of the FIR and argued that no offence under Section 153A of IPC was made out. However, the State opposed the plea and argued that the incident had escalated tension and the National Security Act was invoked against Shukla..In the order dated May 15, the Court recorded that it had asked the counsel representing Rathore to clarify whether Shukla was wearing the same dress as shown in the cartoon.“It was fairly conceded by counsel for applicant that the cartoon which has been uploaded by the applicant was not in accordance with the actual incident and certain dress was included which the accused was not wearing at the time of incident,” the Court noted.Observing that the question of why the particular dress was added by Rathore in the cartoon is to be decided in the trial, the Court said,“The addition of a particular dress was indicative of the fact that applicant wanted to communicate that the offence was committed by a person belonging to a particular ideology. Thus, it was a clear case of making an attempt to disrupt harmony and to provoke the feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will.”.On the argument that Rathore had no intention to commit the offence of promoting enmity, the Court said her defence has to be proved during the trial. It thus refused to quash the First Information Report (FIR) against her.“Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference,” it said..Advocate Arubendra Singh Parihar represented the petitioner Neha Singh Rathore.Public Prosecutor Mohan Sausarkar represented the State.[Read Judgment]