 Well, today I want to share with you an interesting development of yesterday when one of the state high courts in India, the Rajasthan High Court, quashed the first information report, the FIR, registered by the police against Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and film journalist Anna Vetikad in 2018 regarding holding a poster stating smash Brahminical patriarchy. This was an offense committed in 2018, the alleged offense. The offenses made out in the police FIR were very serious in nature being under section 120b 295a, section 500, 501, 504 and 5 of the Indian penal code, dealing predominantly with criminal conspiracy, maliciously outraging religious sentiments, breach of peace, causing communal disharmony and defamation etc. If proven and convicted, the accused Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and journalist Anna Vetikad could have faced imprisonment for life. The High Court allowed their plea to quash the FIR after concluding that the slogan cannot be construed as having any direct link with the religious sentiments of any section of society. How the whole thing started was that Jack Dorsey visited India in 2018 and held a meeting with six female journalists. After the meeting, a photo was tweeted on a Twitter account in which a poster bearing slogan smash Brahminical patriarchy was prominently displayed. One private complainer alleged at that time that by posting this highly objectionable poster picture on the Twitter account, the accused maligned the Brahmin society at large and also acted in a manner likely to create rift and factions in the society and induce even religious hatred towards the Brahmin community as a whole. The police complaint got to be registered accordingly at that time in Rajasthan. The High Court of Rajasthan has now quashed that criminal complaint that is the FIR in other words on the grounds that the words referred in the slogan smash Brahminical patriarchy cannot be construed as having any direct link with the religious sentiments of any section of society. The court said that 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 scene can be interpreted as creating a religion based rift in any section of society. The words in the poster at best convey according to the court the feelings of the concerned person regarding being strongly opposed to the Brahminical patriarchal system and desires of denouncing the same. 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. Hence, this criminal matter which I feel could have taken an ugly turn against Jack Dorsey and Anna Vetika has been put to rest at least for the time being unless the aggrieved complainant prefers an appeal against the said high court order.