Justice Sandeep Sharma of the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR against Thakar Singh Bharmouri, emphasizing the absence of credible evidence.
“Interestingly, the person, who was allegedly intentionally insulted by the petitioner, thereby being provoked to breach the public peace or commit any other offence, never came forward to lodge a complaint…” These words from Justice Sandeep Sharma of the Himachal Pradesh High Court encapsulate the essence of a recent ruling that quashed an FIR against Thakar Singh Bharmouri for derogatory remarks aimed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The court’s decision, delivered on April 4, 2026, highlighted significant gaps in the accusations made against Bharmouri. Justice Sharma noted that vague accusations do not constitute a criminal offense without specific descriptions of the language used. The FIR was filed following an email complaint from a Bharatiya Janta Party member regarding remarks made during an election rally on October 3, 2021.
In his ruling, Justice Sharma stated, “No material worth credence has been adduced on record to suggest that petitioner intentionally, with a view to cause public disruption, hurled abuses and made uncalled for remarks against the Hon’ble Prime Minister.” This statement underscores the court’s focus on the necessity of concrete evidence in legal proceedings.
The court further emphasized that to invoke Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, specific grounds must be proven. Justice Sharma pointed out that there was no evidence of promoting enmity or hatred among different classes of citizens, a crucial factor in determining the legitimacy of the charges.
“…there is no allegation that while using absurd language and hurling abuses at the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, petitioner ever attempted to promote enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language…” These remarks reflect the court’s commitment to uphold the principles of justice and free speech.
The FIR was registered following an email complaint by a Bharatiya Janta Party office bearer, which prompted the court’s scrutiny. Justice Sharma’s ruling ultimately led to Bharmouri’s formal acquittal of the charges after the FIR was quashed.
In a broader context, the ruling serves as a reminder of the legal standards required to substantiate claims of public disruption and the importance of protecting individuals from frivolous legal actions. Justice Sharma concluded, “The High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 must be exercised to prevent the judicial process from being used as a weapon of harassment in cases where a conviction is highly unlikely.”
This ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving political speech and the legal thresholds required to pursue such allegations. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the implications of this decision will likely resonate within the political and judicial arenas.
Details remain unconfirmed.
