A Madras High Court Judge’s suggestion to amend the Constitution of India mandating that every citizen also has a duty to laugh comes as a whiff of fresh air — something the country has been gasping for, of late. Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench has a remarkably refined sense of humour, but in quashing an FIR against a man arrested for an innocuous social media post, his insightful observations only highlight the idiocy and absurdity that surround the growth and normalisation of the offence-taking tribe. Written from the perspective of cartoonists and satirists, the judgment draws attention to how what ought to be a reasonable understanding of a situation is increasingly being influenced by impulses that border on the irrational and amount to an abuse of the legal process. The petitioner tried tongue-in-cheek wordplay while captioning photographs after a sight-seeing trip with family : ‘Trip to Sirumalai for shooting practice’. For the police, it appeared as a threat to wage war, though the Judicial Magistrate refused remand. ‘Laugh at what?’ is a serious question, the Judge said, using the ‘holy cow’ as a metaphor, which varies from person to person, region to region. Being funny is one thing, the Judge rightly states, and poking fun at another is different altogether. Those who have been at the receiving end for their attempt at humour can draw strength from the ruling, but then, a creative process facing combative opposition because of its very nature is anything but funny.

According to the given passage, which of the following statements is not true?

The correct option/answer is: the word ‘shooting’ used in a sentence is indicative of waging war.

Let's analyze the given passage step-by-step to evaluate each statement and identify which one is not true according to the text:

1. Analyzing the statement: "the word ‘shooting’ used in a sentence is indicative of waging war."
The passage mentions that the petitioner posted a photo with the caption: ‘Trip to Sirumalai for shooting practice’ as tongue-in-cheek wordplay after a family trip. The passage explicitly highlights that for the police it appeared as a threat, but this interpretation is used as an example of "idiocy and absurdity" and an abuse of the legal process, not a true or reasonable fact. Therefore, stating that the word 'shooting' used in a sentence is indicative of waging war is incorrect/false based on the author's logic, making this the statement that is not true according to the passage.

2. Checking other options:
- "each expression should be understood according to its context." — The passage emphasizes that what ought to be a reasonable understanding of a situation should be considered, rather than taking harmless wordplay out of context.
- "Legal process can be abused if the authorities act on their irrational impulses." — Supported by the text: "...influenced by impulses that border on the irrational and amount to an abuse of the legal process."
- "the expression ‘holy cow’ bears different meanings for different people." — Supported by the text: "using the ‘holy cow’ as a metaphor, which varies from person to person, region to region."

Thus, the statement that is not true according to the passage is "the word ‘shooting’ used in a sentence is indicative of waging war."