Key Highlights
- Punjab Police registered over 100 FIRs across multiple districts targeting social media handles posting casteist content against Chief Justice BR Gavai
- Legal action taken under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections for promoting enmity and public mischief
- Chief Justice Gavai is the second Scheduled Caste person to hold India’s highest judicial office after K.G. Balakrishnan
Initial Context
Punjab Police have launched a comprehensive crackdown on social media platforms following the detection of over 100 handles involved in sharing objectionable content targeting Chief Justice BR Gavai. The swift police action represents one of the most extensive cybercrime operations undertaken by Punjab authorities, with multiple FIRs filed across several districts after receiving numerous complaints regarding posts and videos containing casteist and hate-filled expressions against the Chief Justice.
This law enforcement response follows a broader pattern of increased social media monitoring by Punjab Police, which has previously blocked over 6,000 social media accounts across various platforms since 2020 to combat gang recruitment and terror activities. The targeted content specifically attacked the Chief Justice’s constitutional position while exploiting caste-based sentiments to promote disharmony and disturb public order.
ਸੁਪਰੀਮ ਕੋਰਟ ਦੇ ਚੀਫ਼ ਜਸਟਿਸ ਬੀ.ਆਰ ਗਵਈ ਜੀ ‘ਤੇ ਜੁੱਤਾ ਸੁੱਟਣ ਦੀ ਘਟਨਾ ਬੇਹੱਦ ਮੰਦਭਾਗੀ ਹੈ। ਜੁੱਤਾ ਸੁੱਟਣ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਵੀ ਸੋਸ਼ਲ ਮੀਡੀਆ 'ਤੇ ਦਲਿਤ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਤੇ ਨਫ਼ਰਤ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਪੋਸਟਾਂ ਪਾਈਆਂ ਗਈਆਂ, ਪਰ ਕੇਂਦਰ ਦੀ ਬੀਜੇਪੀ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਨੇ ਨਾ ਤਾਂ ਪੋਸਟਾਂ ਪਾਉਣ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਖ਼ਿਲਾਫ਼ ਕੋਈ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਕੀਤੀ ਤੇ ਨਾ ਹੀ ਜੁੱਤਾ ਸੁੱਟਣ ਵਾਲੇ ‘ਤੇ।… pic.twitter.com/3QUWoD31x0
— AAP Punjab (@AAPPunjab) October 9, 2025
Legal Framework and Charges
- FIRs registered under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(u) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989
- Additional charges filed under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 196, 352, 353(1), 353(2), and 61
The Punjab Police spokesperson emphasized that the social media posts contained content relating to attacks on high constitutional authority, caste-based vilification, and incitement amounting to public mischief with deliberate attempts to disturb peace and public order by unjustly exploiting caste and communal sentiments.
Under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989, these offenses carry significant penalties, as the legislation was specifically enacted to prevent commission of offenses of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 196 addresses promotion of enmity between different groups and actions prejudicial to public peace, with penalties including up to three years imprisonment, fines, or both. The comprehensive legal action targets content that included intentional intimidation and insult to a member of a Scheduled Caste, attempts to promote enmity and hatred against Scheduled Castes members, and promotion of enmity between groups on grounds of caste, particularly when directed at the Chief Justice.
Chief Justice Gavai’s Historic Position
- Justice BR Gavai became 52nd Chief Justice on May 14, 2025
- Second person from Scheduled Caste community to hold this constitutional position
- First practicing Buddhist to become Chief Justice of India
Chief Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai represents a historic milestone in India’s judicial system, being the second Scheduled Caste person to hold the nation’s highest judicial office after Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. Born on November 24, 1960, in Amravati, Maharashtra, Justice Gavai comes from a strong Ambedkarite legacy, with his father R.S. Gavai having embraced Buddhism alongside Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in 1956. The Chief Justice has often spoken about how his professional choice was inspired by Ambedkar and his father’s vision of Dalit upliftment through legal education.
After enrolling as an advocate in 1985, he practiced before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court and served as pleader and prosecutor for Maharashtra Government before his elevation to Additional Judge of Bombay High Court on November 14, 2003. His appointment to the Supreme Court occurred on May 24, 2019, leading to his current tenure as Chief Justice, which will continue until November 23, 2025.
Punjab Police’s Digital Monitoring Capabilities
- Over 6,000 social media accounts blocked by Punjab Police since 2020
- Dedicated social media monitoring cells operational across districts
- Specialized cybercrime units tracking online hate content
Punjab Police have established robust digital monitoring infrastructure with separate social media monitoring cells that actively track platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and other messaging applications. According to official data, Punjab Police have blocked 4,185 Facebook accounts, 513 Twitter accounts, 417 YouTube accounts, 118 Instagram accounts, 214 websites, and accounts across various other platforms since 2020. The state police force operates centralized social media accounts managed by teams stationed at Chandigarh headquarters, with dedicated district-level accounts overseen by officials including sub-inspectors, assistant sub-inspectors, head constables, and constables who create content after clearance from commissioners and senior superintendents.
These monitoring capabilities enable Punjab Police to conduct intelligence assessment and gauge public sentiment over situations that could potentially disturb communal harmony or cause societal fissures, particularly when targeting high constitutional offices like the Chief Justice. The comprehensive approach involves collaboration between district-level teams and headquarters staff, with MBA professionals managing central accounts while district personnel handle local social media oversight and content creation.
Constitutional and Legal Implications
The widespread social media campaign targeting Chief Justice BR Gavai raises significant concerns about threats to judicial independence and constitutional authority in the digital age. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 196 specifically addresses electronic communication used to promote disharmony or hatred among groups based on religion, race, language, caste, or community, with enhanced penalties of up to five years imprisonment if offenses occur in places of worship. Legal experts note that proving intent behind statements or actions remains a key challenge in prosecuting such cases, as courts require clear evidence that accused individuals sought to create enmity rather than merely expressing opinions.
The enforcement of these provisions against digital offenses requires careful balance between protecting freedom of speech while preventing hate speech that can lead to violence and social unrest. Punjab Police’s coordinated response demonstrates the state’s commitment to protecting constitutional authorities from caste-based attacks while maintaining law and order in the face of deliberate attempts to exploit communal sentiments, especially when targeting the office of Chief Justice. The nature of attacks against the Chief Justice reflects broader challenges facing judicial institutions in maintaining dignity and independence while confronting social media-driven hate campaigns that exploit communal divisions.
Closing Assessment
The Punjab Police action against social media posts targeting Chief Justice BR Gavai represents a significant enforcement of laws protecting constitutional authorities from caste-based attacks and hate speech. This comprehensive legal response, involving multiple FIRs across districts and deployment of specialized cybercrime monitoring capabilities, demonstrates the state’s commitment to maintaining judicial dignity and preventing communal disharmony in the digital sphere.
The case highlights the evolving challenges of regulating online hate speech while balancing free expression rights, particularly when targeting individuals from marginalized communities who have achieved historic constitutional positions as Chief Justice. As Chief Justice Gavai continues his tenure representing a milestone in judicial diversity, this incident underscores the ongoing need for robust legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms to protect democratic institutions from digital-age threats to social harmony.
