Bengaluru | September 10, 2025 — The Cyber Crime Police have filed a First Information Report (FIR) against a Facebook user for allegedly disrespecting Mahatma Gandhi in a public post made on Teachers’ Day.
The Facebook account under scrutiny, operated under the name “Akhanda Hindustan”, is accused of posting content that dismisses the role of Mahatma Gandhi in India’s freedom struggle, triggering legal action under provisions of both the Information Technology Act and the newly enforced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Post Sparks Legal Backlash
The controversial post, uploaded on September 5, 2025, read: “Happy Teachers’ Day to all… except those who taught us that Mahatma Gandhi got us freedom.” The language of the post, while not explicitly abusive, was flagged as derogatory and misleading, with potential to promote historical revisionism and provoke ideological tensions.
According to officials from the Social Media Monitoring Cell, who initiated the complaint, the post undermines widely accepted historical narratives and has the capacity to spread disinformation under the guise of opinion.
A senior police officer from the Cyber Crime unit confirmed that the FIR was registered on September 8 under Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, which pertains to identity theft and misuse of digital credentials, and Section 354 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with coerced manipulation and incitement.
Legal Grounds and Investigative Focus
Section 66(C) of the IT Act targets unauthorized use of digital identity markers such as electronic signatures or passwords. While the exact nature of the identity violation is still under investigation, police sources hinted at possible misuse of someone else’s digital identity or credentials to gain attention or legitimacy for the post.
Section 354 of the BNS, introduced in the revised Indian penal code framework, addresses manipulation or coercion into actions that may be legally or ethically questionable. The application of this section indicates that investigators believe the content may not just be provocative but could amount to incitement or ideological coercion.
Authorities have also begun examining the pattern of interactions on the post — including likes, shares, and comments — to determine whether the content was part of a coordinated digital campaign aimed at pushing controversial historical narratives.
Historical Legacy vs. Freedom of Speech
The incident has added to the growing tension between online free speech and social responsibility. Mahatma Gandhi, often referred to as the Father of the Nation, remains a revered figure in India’s independence movement. Criticism of his methods and legacy is not new, but targeting his contribution in a public social media post has crossed a line for many, particularly on a national day meant to honour teachers.
A senior official in the cyber crime division said, “When someone publicly discredits the historical foundation on which our democracy stands, it cannot be ignored as just another online opinion. It carries consequences.”
Supporters of the FIR argue that while democratic values uphold the freedom of expression, that freedom does not extend to spreading misinformation that could create public disharmony or distort the national historical consciousness.
Social Media’s Role Under Scrutiny
This case has once again brought social media platforms under the regulatory microscope, especially their mechanisms for flagging, moderating, and responding to controversial or potentially harmful content.
Facebook’s moderation team is reportedly collaborating with Indian authorities to identify the account holder’s IP address, activity logs, and other metadata. Officials are also probing whether the page “Akhanda Hindustan” is operated by an individual or an organized group.
The rapid sharing and amplification of the post have raised concerns about echo chambers and ideological targeting, particularly as the post appears to appeal to a specific nationalist rhetoric that challenges the mainstream narrative of India’s freedom movement.
An official source close to the investigation stated, “We are not just investigating a single post, but the broader digital footprint and intent behind the content. If there is evidence of organized distortion of public history, further action will follow.”
Public Reactions Divided
As the news of the FIR made headlines, public reaction has been mixed. Many online users have expressed support for the legal action, saying that Gandhi’s legacy should be protected against politically motivated attacks. Others have questioned whether legal intervention is the best course, raising issues about free speech boundaries in a democratic society.
A professor of political science at a leading university commented, “We need to be cautious. While misinformation must be countered, over-policing speech on social media might also chill necessary public debate. Gandhi himself stood for the right to dissent.”
However, the professor added that historical accuracy cannot be compromised, especially on widely followed platforms that influence public opinion.
Not the First Incident
This is not the first time social media users have faced legal action for content targeting national figures. Over the years, several individuals have been booked for posts deemed disrespectful to national leaders, religious sentiments, or historical icons.
What makes this case particularly notable is the timing and tone of the post — issued on Teachers’ Day, a day meant to celebrate the guiding forces in people’s lives. Critics argue that such messaging not only undermines the spirit of the occasion but weaponizes national observances for ideological gain.
Facebook and Government Coordination
Facebook has previously stated that it complies with local laws and takes down content reported as violating those laws. In this instance, the platform has reportedly disabled the visibility of the post following police intervention, pending the outcome of the investigation.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is also said to be monitoring the case as part of its ongoing effort to enforce the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which hold platforms accountable for content moderation.
Educational Experts Weigh In
Teachers’ Day has traditionally been a moment for reflecting on the value of education and the individuals who shape the minds of future generations. The post’s suggestion that those who taught Gandhi’s role in India’s independence were wrong has led some educators to call for greater historical literacy in schools.
A Delhi-based history teacher noted, “Questioning historical narratives is a part of academic evolution. But doing so irresponsibly, on public platforms, without scholarly backing or nuance, can lead to dangerous simplifications and distortions.”
Educational institutions are being urged to reinforce critical thinking and historical analysis as part of their curriculum to equip students with the tools to differentiate between revisionism and legitimate historical inquiry.
The Road Ahead
As the investigation progresses, authorities are expected to summon the Facebook user behind the “Akhanda Hindustan” account for questioning. If found guilty under the applicable sections, the individual could face significant legal consequences, including potential jail time and fines.
The case may also set a precedent for how future online content critical of national figures is handled, especially under the BNS framework, which aims to replace outdated colonial-era laws with more India-centric legal mechanisms.
Ultimately, the issue at hand is not merely about one social media post. It reflects the ongoing tussle between modern digital expression and the sanctity of shared national heritage.
The FIR against the Facebook user for allegedly disrespecting Mahatma Gandhi underscores the growing need to establish clear boundaries in the digital age. As online platforms become central to public discourse, authorities and civil society must collaboratively define how history, free expression, and digital responsibility coexist. While dissent remains a cornerstone of democracy, the line between criticism and defamation — especially when aimed at foundational figures — demands sharper legal and ethical clarity.
