An FIR registered in Uttar Pradesh against a woman for allegedly using abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn sharp criticism, with activists questioning the application of law and alleging a double standard in its enforcement.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that the FIR, lodged in Noida, has prompted widespread discussion on whether different legal frameworks are being applied to citizens and political figures in the country. The controversy centres on the registration of a case following a complaint over remarks made during a protest.
Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), publicly questioned the FIR, asking if the country operated under “two laws.” He pointed out the perceived disparity in action taken against individuals for making objectionable statements, contrasting the FIR against the woman with the absence of similar action against members of the ruling party’s IT cell and elected officials accused of using offensive language.
In a video shared on the social media platform X, Dipke highlighted instances where individuals identifying with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have allegedly used abusive language against women online. He noted that some of these social media users explicitly state they are followed by Prime Minister Modi in their online profiles, further intensifying his criticism regarding the selective enforcement of laws.
Dipke further referenced specific public figures, including a BJP Member of Parliament, Ramesh Bidhuri, whose remarks in Parliament drew considerable attention. He also cited an instance involving Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, referring to a video that reportedly showed the Chief Minister using abusive language towards a camera person. This led Dipke to question the prevailing situation, asking if there was a “separate law for youth and a separate law for BJP and their leaders.”
The CJP founder argued that while abusive language is undesirable, it should not automatically constitute a criminal offence warranting an FIR. He suggested that counselling or explaining the inappropriMETRICt of such language would be more appropriate. He contended that if FIRs were to be filed for abusive language, the BJP’s IT cell and its leaders, who have allegedly engaged in such conduct extensively over the years, would be subject to the highest number of cases. This, he implied, included instances of offensive language used even within the Parliament.
The Zero FIR was lodged at the Expressway police station in Noida on the complaint of Ghaziabad resident Smriti Singh against Ruchika Singh. The allegations pertain to the use of abusive and objectionable language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a protest at Jantar Mantar on July 23. The case has been registered under Sections 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), 353(1) (statements conducing to public mischief), and 356(1) (defamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which is set to replace the Indian Penal Code.
Police have stated that the Zero FIR, which can be filed in any police station irrespective of the jurisdiction of the crime, would be transferred to the New Delhi police for further investigation, as the alleged incident occurred in the national capital.
The incident and the subsequent debate underscore a broader national conversation regarding freedom of speech, the nuances of defamation and insult laws, and the perceived fairness in the application of legal statutes across different segments of society and political affiliations in India. Activists and legal experts have called for a consistent and unbiased approach to law enforcement, ensuring that legal provisions are applied uniformly, irrespective of the complainant’s or the accused’s political standing or affiliations.
The Chenab Times News Desk