“Interestingly, the person, who was allegedly intentionally insulted by the petitioner, thereby being provoked to breach the public peace or commit any other offence, never came forward to lodge a complaint…” These words from Justice Sandeep Sharma of the Himachal Pradesh High Court encapsulate the court’s recent decision to quash an FIR against Thakar Singh Bharmouri for remarks allegedly made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The court’s ruling on April 4, 2026, highlighted that vague accusations do not constitute a criminal offense without specific descriptions of the language used. Justice Sharma noted that the main ingredient to invoke Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code was missing in this case.
The complaint, which led to the FIR, was filed by a member of the Bharatiya Janta Party following remarks made during an election rally on October 3, 2021. However, it was significant that Prime Minister Modi himself did not file the complaint.
Justice Sharma stated, “No material worth credence has been adduced on record to suggest that petitioner intentionally, with a view to cause public disruption, hurled abuses and made uncalled for remarks against the Hon’ble Prime Minister.” This assertion reflects the court’s stance on the necessity of tangible evidence in such cases.
The ruling further emphasized that to invoke Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, specific grounds must be proven. The court observed that there was no evidence of promoting enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens.
In his remarks, Justice Sharma added, “…there is no allegation that while using absurd language and hurling abuses at the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, petitioner ever attempted to promote enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language…”
Ultimately, the court quashed the FIR, leading to the formal acquittal of the petitioner. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal processes.
Justice Sharma concluded with a strong statement on judicial integrity, asserting, “The High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 must be exercised to prevent the judicial process from being used as a weapon of harassment in cases where a conviction is highly unlikely.”
This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse regarding political speech and legal accountability in India.
