The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR that was filed against Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and journalist Anna MM Vetticad over a poster that said ‘Smash Brahminical Patriarchy’. Jack and Anna had filed petitions in the court to quash the FIR against them, filed on the basis of a complaint by a Brahmin man who was offended by the poster that Jack was holding in a photo with six women journalists from India. The photo was posted on Twitter by Anna.
The FIR had said that the phrase, ‘Smash Brahminical Patriarchy’ were hurtful to the religious sentiments of Brahmins, and defamed ‘the entire Brahmin society’. However, Justice Sandeep Mehta who heard the petitions held that this phrase cannot be held as one that is hurtful to religious sentiments – but rather a challenge to sociological concepts.
“The phrase which has been castigated as offending in the FIR, may be construed as laying a challenge to the sociological concepts of a particular section/gender of the Brahmin community, but by no stretch of imagination can it be perceived that these words can even remotely be considered as hurting the religious sentiments of any citizen of India nor the same can be interpreted as creating a religion based rift in any section of society,” the court said.
Quashing the FIR against Jack and Anna, Justice Sandeep Mehta said the poster at best conveyed that people were opposed to the system of Brahminical Patriarchy. “Whether or not to follow or oppose the patriarchal system in the society is a matter of personal choice and cannot be thrust down anyone's throat,” he said.
The photo in question was one of Jack’s visit to India in 2018 where he had a meeting with six women journalists. In a group photo, he held a poster which said “Smash Brahminical Patriarchy.” The poster was made by Sanghapali Aruna, an anti-caste activist and Executive Director of Project Mukti. An FIR against the photo was registered in Jodhpur under sections 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class), 500 (defamation), 501 (printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
The complaint was filed by Raj Kumar Sharma, a Jodhpur resident. Raj, in his complaint, had argued that being a Brahmin of immense religious faith, the feelings of the entire Brahmin community were hurt by the photograph. He also accused the petitioners of creating rifts and factions in the society and inducing religious hatred. He had added that the Brahmin community is “highly respected” and has kept “Indian culture alive since ages.”
Anna and Jack argued that Brahmanical Patriarchy is intended to convey not just sexual control over women, but also caste purity, which is unique to Hindu society. They argued that whether or not the said theory is relevant in this context is a matter of sociological discussion, and not a question of hurting religious sentiments.