-
by sayum
06 April 2026 2:01 PM
“The words of the post quoted in the FIR may not speak per se about religion, but definitely convey an underlying and subtle message that his brother has been targeted... because of him belonging to a particular religious community.” — Allahabad High Court
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Pramod Kumar Srivastava delivered a significant ruling in Afaq Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21834 of 2025, refusing to quash an FIR registered under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The petitioner had sought extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the FIR which accused him of circulating an allegedly inflammatory WhatsApp message after his brother's arrest for unlawful religious conversion. The Court declined to interfere, holding that the message, though not explicitly communal, carried an implied communal narrative, thereby warranting investigation under the criminal law.
“Even Subtle Allusions That Impute Religious Targeting Can Spark Communal Discord”: High Court Highlights Danger of Coded Messaging
The core issue before the Court was whether a message that does not directly refer to religion, but implies that action against someone was taken due to their religious identity, can be said to attract provisions aimed at preventing communal enmity. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, Afaq Ahmad, sent a WhatsApp message following his brother Arif’s arrest, which was "designed to disturb communal peace and outrage religious feelings of a class of citizens."
The petitioner argued that the message simply expressed anguish over his brother’s arrest, challenged the police version of events, and affirmed faith in the judiciary. He also asserted that the FIR contained no reference to any particular community or inflammatory appeal, and that he was being falsely implicated after his brother’s arrest in Case Crime No. 414 of 2025, registered under multiple sections of the BNS and the 2021 Conversion Act.
However, the Court found that the "unsaid words" and "underlying tone" of the message carried a message that implicitly conveyed a grievance of communal targeting. The bench observed:
“These unsaid words in the message prima facie would outrage religious feelings of a class of citizens hailing from a particular community, who would think that they are being targeted because of belonging to a particular religious community.”
This observation clarified that even non-explicit references, when viewed in the context of communal sensitivities and the manner of dissemination, could potentially foster inter-community ill-will, especially if sent en masse via digital platforms like WhatsApp.
The controversy arose after Arif, the petitioner’s brother, was arrested on July 24, 2025, under Sections 296, 352, 351(2), 123, 64(1), 318(4), and 336(3) of the BNS, in addition to Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Following the arrest, Afaq Ahmad allegedly circulated a message on WhatsApp expressing that his brother had been falsely implicated and that their family's reputation and livelihood had been damaged.
The FIR, lodged by Sub-Inspector Prashant Singh of Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, stated that the message was intended to disturb communal peace. Screenshots of the deleted message, saved by a recipient, were seized as evidence. Based on this, Case Crime No. 421 of 2025 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 299 and 353(3) of the BNS.
The key legal questions before the Court were:
The Court conducted a textual and contextual reading of the message and found that although the post did not mention religion, it unmistakably projected that "the petitioner’s brother was targeted due to his community affiliation." The Court cautioned that such implications can have as much impact on public order as overtly communal statements.
In Paragraph 8, the Court stated: “Even if one were to think that no religious feelings of a class of citizens or community have been outraged, per se by the WhatsApp message, it is certainly a message which... is likely to create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between religious communities... The act may not be within the mischief of Section 353(3), but prima facie would attract Section 353(2) BNS.”
This analysis clarified the scope of Section 353(2), which deals with promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds such as religion, even in cases where the provocation is subtle, coded, or implied.
Further, the Court noted that once the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence, judicial interference through Article 226 would be premature and unwarranted. It held:
“We are of opinion that this is a matter which requires investigation and cannot be scuttled at an incipient stage, foreclosing probe that must be carried to its logical conclusion.”
The petition to quash the FIR was ultimately dismissed, with the Court concluding that no case for extraordinary relief was made out. Emphasising the dangers of coded communal messaging, the Allahabad High Court reinforced that the judiciary cannot pre-emptively thwart investigations where a prima facie offence exists, especially when the potential for communal disharmony is involved.
The ruling is significant not only for its interpretation of new provisions under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, but also for addressing the evolving challenge of social media misuse in communal contexts. It also sets the tone for early-stage judicial restraint in quashing proceedings that are fact-dependent and require thorough investigation.
Date of Decision: 26 September 2025
