Supreme Court: Questions 'Breast Tax' Facebook Post FIR, Cites Frivolousness

• The Supreme Court questioned an FIR against social worker Rupnarayan Ekka over a Facebook post discussing a historical 'breast tax' and allegedly objectionable remarks about Hindu women.
• Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan heard Ekka's plea for anticipatory bail, which the Chhattisgarh High Court had previously denied.
• Ekka's counsel, Prashant Bhushan, argued the Facebook post did not constitute an offense and characterized the case as 'totally frivolous'.
• The bench remarked on the need for police to focus on significant cases rather than such matters, questioning the necessity of the FIR.
• Justice Nagarathna indicated that the perceived frivolousness of the case was the reason the Supreme Court entertained the anticipatory bail plea.

Justice R Mahadevan explicitly questioned the rationale behind filing an FIR for such a matter, advising authorities to 'concentrate on big cases' rather than those of this nature.

On Monday, India's apex court expressed reservations regarding the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against a social worker concerning a Facebook post. The post, which discussed a historical "breast tax" and allegedly contained objectionable comments about Hindu women, became the subject of a legal challenge. The case, titled Rupnarayan Ekka vs State of Chhattisgarh, saw the petitioner, Rupnarayan Ekka, seeking anticipatory bail after the Chhattisgarh High Court had previously denied his request.

A two-judge bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan presided over the matter. The Court's immediate reaction signaled a critical view of the police action, questioning the necessity of an FIR in such circumstances. This intervention by the Supreme Court highlights a growing judicial concern over the nature of complaints being registered, particularly those stemming from social media interactions, and the threshold for police action.

During the proceedings, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing Rupnarayan Ekka, contended that the Facebook post in question did not constitute a criminal offense. Bhushan elaborated on the content of the post, stating it merely suggested that a tax on women covering their breasts was historically imposed by a Brahmin, not by Aurangzeb. He firmly asserted that such a statement, even if historically debatable, should not be grounds for an FIR, describing the entire case as "totally frivolous."

Justice BV Nagarathna acknowledged this characterization, noting that the perceived frivolousness of the matter was precisely why the Supreme Court had chosen to entertain the anticipatory bail plea. Bhushan further emphasized his client's right to express a historical viewpoint, even if it might be considered incorrect by others, arguing that it did not cross the threshold of an offense. This exchange underscores the ongoing debate surrounding freedom of speech social media FIR cases in India, particularly when allegations of hate speech India are involved, and the implications for anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court bench conveyed strong sentiments regarding the appropriate use of police resources. Justice R Mahadevan explicitly questioned the rationale behind filing an FIR for such a matter, advising authorities to "concentrate on big cases" rather than those of this nature. This remark, coupled with Justice Nagarathna's observation that "people have a lot of time to waste" on such complaints, reflects the Court's stance on the threshold for police intervention and Supreme Court remarks on FIR registration.

The State's counsel informed the Court that a notice had been issued to Ekka on September 9, but he had not subsequently appeared at the police station. In response, the bench instructed the State to formally summon Ekka, assuring that he would comply. This directive further illustrates the Court's intent to manage the process efficiently and ensure due procedure, while simultaneously questioning the initial basis for the FIR, aligning with the broader judicial concern over frivolous FIR cases, a point often highlighted by judges like Justice BV Nagarathna.

Lawyers should note the Supreme Court's strong guidance on the threshold for registering FIRs, particularly for social media posts or perceived 'hate speech' that may be deemed frivolous. This signals a judicial inclination towards a higher bar for police action in such cases, which can be leveraged when advising clients on free speech, challenging FIRs for online content, or seeking anticipatory bail.

Source: Original reporting from legal sources.