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

Despite the Supreme Court’s recent observation in Imran Pratapgarhi’s case requiring the investigating officer, before filing an FIR, to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain prima facie case, the FIR against ‘Ms Medusa’ for her satirical videos repeats a very similar script
State of satire or satire of the State?: Notes on the FIR against ‘Ms. Medusa’
Published on

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.
Loading content, please wait...
The Leaflet
theleaflet.in