The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed by a journalist seeking to quash a criminal case registered against him over a WhatsApp message allegedly containing objectionable remarks about Hindu beliefs and the Brahmin community. The petitioner, Buddha Prakash Bouddha, has challenged Madhya Pradesh High Court order that refused to interfere with the FIR lodged against him in 2025. The top court sought responses from the State while also taking note of the petitioner’s request for interim relief, as criminal proceedings in the case continue before the trial court.
Case Stems From WhatsApp Post In 2025
The case relates to a message shared by Bouddha in September 2025 in a WhatsApp group titled “B P Bauddh Patrakar News Group”. According to the complaint, the message ran into several pages and contained remarks described as derogatory towards the Hindu religion and the Brahmin community.
The complaint alleged that the forwarded text referred to ancient practices and claimed that consuming beef was essential to being a good Hindu, that meat consumption was required on certain occasions, and that cows and bulls were slaughtered during religious rituals. It also stated that Brahmins regularly consumed bovine meat, along with other comments that were said to be offensive in nature.
Based on the complaint, police registered a case under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Section 196(1)(b) for promoting enmity between groups, Section 299 for acts intended to insult religious feelings, and Section 353 relating to public mischief.
Supreme Court Issues Notice
Bouddha had earlier approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that he had only shared excerpts from a book written by Dr Surendra Kumar Sharma and had no intention to provoke communal tension.
The State opposed the plea, arguing that the material circulated was inflammatory and deliberately provocative. In December 2025, the High Court declined to quash the case, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed the offences invoked.
Challenging that order, Bouddha moved the Supreme Court, where his counsel argued that the FIR was “completely police-managed” and filed against a journalist who had previously exposed irregularities in the police department.
The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the respondents and posted the matter for further hearing on March 25.
