Madras HC orders re-investigation in a case relating to offensive Facebook post on Lord Krishna, says depicting Hindu Gods in disrespectful manner not justified
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court pulled up the Tamil Nadu police on Monday (4th August) for not diligently pursuing a case registered on a complaint filed against a derogatory Facebook post about the Hindu God Krishna. The High Court also criticised the concerned Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, who ordered the closure of the case based on the final report and concealing certain facts.
A single bench of Justice K Murali Shankar allowed a criminal revision petition filed by one P Paramasivan and directed the police to conduct an investigation into the case and submit a final report within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order.
While ordering a re-investigation in the case, the High Court remarked, “Depicting Hindu Gods in a disrespectful manner, intentionally hurting the sentiments of millions, cannot be justified. Such actions have the potential to spark enmity, religious outrage, social disorder, and undermine communal harmony. Given the deep-rooted respect for religious symbols and deities, disrespect can lead to social unrest and hurt a large section of society. Therefore, it is crucial to approach such depictions with sensitivity. The Government must ensure that freedom of expression does not translate into hurting religious feelings.”
Brief facts of the case
An offensive Facebook post was published by a Facebook profile named Sathish Kumar on August 19, 2022, about the Hindu God Krishna. The Facebook post contained an obscene image and two Tamil comments. The image showed some nude girls taking a bath in a pool and Lord Krishna stealing their clothes, and the Tamil comments said that Krishna Jayanti was a celebration of a man who stole the clothes of bathing women. The misleading post deeply hurt the sentiments of the petitioner, who filed a complaint with the police. The complainant said that the post was uploaded with the intent to defame Hindu gods and tarnish the image of Hindu women, and could potentially trigger law and order problems.
Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered on August 26, 2022, under Sections 298, 504, 505(2) I.P.C., and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. After completing the investigation, a final report was submitted by the Tamil Nadu police on March 12, 2025. Aggrieved by the order of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the police for re-investigating the case.
Police did not try to verify the details of the Facebook profile: HC
After examining the facts of the case, the High Court noted that the police did not pursue the case diligently. In the final report, the police said that they requested Meta (which owns Facebook) to provide information about the Facebook user who made the offensive post. Meta, in an email, refused to provide the details about the Facebook user and said that a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) request or letter rogatory was required for it to give the information sought.
The Court observed that after receiving a negative response from Meta, the Investigating Officer did not take any further steps and instead went on to file a negative final report and closed the case as ‘undetected’. The court said that the Investigating Officer limited the entire investigation to requesting Meta for information, while, as pointed out by the petitioner, the Facebook profile named Sathish Kumar had personal details, including educational background, work history, residence, and a photograph, which could have provided a lead to the police.
“The prosecution has not verified the accuracy of these details or provided any explanation for not doing so. While the Investigating Officer identified the post’s potential to create law and order issues and disturb communal harmony, the investigation was not pursued diligently, and the final report appears to have been filed mechanically,” the court said in its judgment accessed by OpIndia.
The concerned Judicial Magistrate concealed the facts and closed the case
The High Court also criticised the concerned Judicial Magistrate, who ordered the closing of the case based on the police report. The Court said that the Judicial Magistrate concealed the facts about the appearance of the petitioner before the court. The Magistrate in the impugned order noted that the petitioner (complainant) did not appear despite notice and thus failed to file any objection against the final report of the police.
It was brought to the knowledge of the High Court that the complainant did appear before the magistrate through his Counsel and raised objections. “But the learned Magistrate, without disclosing the above aspects, has proceeded to close the case as the complainant has not turned up. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has neither referred nor considered the objections raised by the de facto complainant’s side at the enquiry,” Justice Shankar said.
Ordering a reinvestigation, the High Court ruled that the final report and the order passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate “cannot legally be sustained.”
News