WhatsApp Message Claiming Brahmins Consumed Beef: Supreme Court Seeks MP Govt Response In Journalist's Plea To Quash FIR

The bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan sought the response of the Madhya Pradesh government while hearing a petition filed by journalist Buddha Prakash Bouddha challenging the refusal of the High Court to quash the case.

“Issue notice to the respondents. Notice is also issued on the interim prayer. Petitioner’s counsel is permitted to serve the first respondent–State,” the Court ordered.

After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents and directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on March 25.

The matter arises from a criminal case registered against Bouddha for circulating a controversial message in a WhatsApp group titled “B P Bauddh Patrakar News Group” in September 2025. According to the complaint, Bouddha posted a seven-page message containing allegedly derogatory and misleading remarks about the Hindu religion and the Brahmin community.

The message referred to certain ancient rituals and asserted that consuming beef was necessary to be a “good Hindu.” It further claimed that meat consumption was obligatory on certain occasions, that cows and bulls were allegedly slaughtered during various religious ceremonies, and that Brahmins historically consumed bovine meat. The complainant alleged that the message contained offensive remarks targeting the Brahmin community and was capable of disturbing communal harmony.

The petitioner was the sole administrator of the group and the only person authorised to post content. The FIR alleged that the message contained assertions on ancient rituals, bull sacrifices, obligatory meat offerings on particular occasions, and references to Brahmins allegedly consuming beef, all of which, according to the complainant, were derogatory, misleading, and capable of hurting religious sentiments.

Following the complaint, the police registered a case against Bouddha under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Section 196(1)(b) for promoting enmity between different religious groups, Section 299 for deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and Section 353 relating to public mischief.

Bouddha initially approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. He had argued that he had merely posted excerpts from a book authored by Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma (Agyaat) and that the criminal proceedings were unwarranted. According to him, the material was sourced from publicly available academic literature and was shared within a private, voluntarily accessed group as part of journalistic and scholarly discourse. He submitted that the group’s purpose was to discuss counter narratives, current affairs and ideas, and therefore his act fell squarely within the protection of Article 19(1)(a).

However, the State had opposed the plea, contending that the complaint clearly disclosed the deliberate publication of inflammatory and provocative material.

In November 2025, the High Court declined to quash the FIR, holding that the allegations in the complaint prima facie attracted the offences invoked in the case and warranted investigation and trial.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Bouddha moved the Supreme Court.

During the hearing today, his counsel argued that the FIR was “completely police managed” and was filed as retaliation against a journalist who had previously exposed alleged irregularities in the functioning of the police.

“Your honour, this is a completely police-managed FIR against a journalist who had highlighted the malfunctioning of the police itself. The same police officers, on his WhatsApp group, motivated people to file the FIR against him,” the counsel submitted.

Responding to a query from the Bench, the petitioner’s lawyer informed the Court that a chargesheet had already been filed in the matter and that further criminal proceedings were underway before the trial court.