The apex court has raised serious concerns regarding a criminal complaint registered against a social worker from Chhattisgarh. The entire dispute stems from a digital platform post involving commentary on historical taxation and women. Following the rejection of anticipatory bail by the state high court, the matter reached the highest judicial forum, where a bench scrutinized the validity of the legal action.
Expressing Historical Views Is Not A Crime
During the proceedings, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued before the bench that the disputed post contained nothing that could constitute a cognizable offense. The message had suggested that taxes on covering women were imposed by a Brahmin rather than a Mughal ruler, urging people to recognize this historical perspective. The legal team dismissed the case as entirely frivolous and baseless. A member of the bench noted that this exact reason made it imperative to entertain the bail petition. The counsel further maintained that holding an individual viewpoint on history, even if deemed incorrect, does not amount to a criminal act.
Background Of The Dispute And Official Complaints
This controversy originated from a police report filed at the Kunkuri police station in Jashpur district of Chhattisgarh under specific sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. According to prosecution details, alleged objectionable material concerning Hindu women was circulated online on April 13, 2025. Subsequently, local community representative Deepak Mishra lodged a formal grievance regarding the post. After the state high court rejected anticipatory bail applications in December 2025 and again in July 2026, the case was escalated to the Supreme Court.
Judicial Remarks And Upcoming Hearing
During the courtroom deliberations, another judge on the panel sharply remarked on the utility of initiating such criminal proceedings, suggesting that law enforcement agencies should direct their attention toward substantial issues rather than routine social media remarks. For now, the court has extended interim protection from arrest to the accused while scheduling the next hearing for December 4.
