State of satire or satire of the State?: Notes on the FIR against ‘Ms. Medusa’

THE LATEST FIR AGAINST TWITTER PERSONALITY ‘MS. MEDUSA’ for a polemical and satirical video in the wake of the Pahalgam terrorist attack is yet another example of the misuse of the criminal law. The FIR, a copy of which I have perused, makes no concrete allegations. All the FIR alleges is that her videos are attacking India's unity, integrity, and sovereignty through posts on her X (formerly Twitter) handle (@ms_medusssa). The posts have been described as an alleged threat to peace and order, with the potential to incite riots, and produced with the alleged purpose of being shared by Pakistani media. Ms. Medusa is also accused of using supposedly hateful terms like ‘Saffron-terrorist’ on social media. The FIR invokes Sections 197(1) (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 353(2) (statements conducing to public mischief), 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity between groups), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 302 (uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), and 152 (acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2024 (‘BNS’), as well as Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (power to block public access to information). From a bare perusal of the FIR and her videos, it is evident that none of the offences are made out. Note here that there is nothing in the videos uploaded that deal with any religion, caste or language. Nor do the videos refer to any persons belonging to any religion. Further, it would be foolish to say that the videos promote enmity between different groups, much less that the statements are detrimental to national unity. Nor has the complainant shown any causal link between the posts and the alleged consequence..We were told that crimes like sedition would no longer be crimes, and instead that they were replaced by other forms like ‘Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration’. Clearly that was a façade to replace sedition with a far more nefarious, wide and ambiguously drafted provision which is prone to misuse..Much was said about the new laws being ‘decolonised’ from the baggage of the British era criminal laws which had stood us in good stead for over 150 years. We were told that crimes like sedition would no longer be crimes, and instead that they were replaced by other forms like ‘Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration’. Clearly that was a façade to replace sedition with a far more nefarious, wide and ambiguously drafted provision which is prone to misuse. Recently when similar sections were invoked against Member of Parliament Imran Pratapgarhi , the Supreme Court came down heavily on the Gujarat police for filing the FIR and held that this was done as a ‘mechanical exercise’ and was clear ‘abuse of the process of law’ (2025 INSC 410). The present FIR also fits the description. Section 173(3) of the BNS also allows the investigating officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case even exists before filing an FIR. It is clear that the investigating officer has failed to do this here, even as the Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi clearly stated that the officer must do so. The Court also held that the standard to be applied would be that of “reasonable, strong- minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.”.Beer Biceps, Chhattisgarh HC’s marital rape decision and the making of a crime in Hindu majoritarian India.The Supreme Court has come down several times against such FIRs being filed. Yet , this practice continues unabated. When the new criminal laws were enacted, several lawyers, former judges, members of the civil society and human rights groups had raised concern over the vaguely worded drafting of these laws. While the initial belief was that the same was a result of shoddy drafting, it appears now that far from a bug, this drafting was a feature of the new laws. What can one do but lament when the chickens have come home to roost.At the heart of the right to free speech is the liberty to speak one's mind, however uncomfortable that mind may be to the prevailing pieties. Free speech and satire are the very bedrock upon which a free society is built, and a bulwark against the creeping tide of tyranny. Pratapgarhi, Kunal Kamra, Neha Rathore, and Ms Medusa are just few of the several victims of men with fragile egos. Their sharp satire mocks the mighty and exposes the absurdities of the condition of our republic. To criminalise such expression and to throw the cloak of criminality over the delicate sensibilities of those who cannot bear to be scrutinised or laughed at is to commit the constitutional sin of inviting the heavy hand of the criminal process as a censor. The health of the body politic of a liberal democracy is measured by its capacity to withstand the jibe, the jest, and the inconvenient truth spoken aloud. It is clear that our democracy is sick.