The Allahabad High Court Today (Feb 27) extended the stay on the arrest of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair till March 3 over an FIR linked to his ‘X’ post on Yati Narsinghanand’s ‘derogatory’ speech.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court today again granted relief to Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair by extending the stay on his arrest.
This means that he cannot be taken into custody until March 3 (Monday).
The case is related to an FIR filed against him because of a post he made on ‘X’ (which was earlier known as Twitter).
The post was about a speech made by Yati Narsinghanand, which has been called ‘derogatory.’
PREVIOUSLY IN HIGH COURT
The Allahabad High Court on 24 Feb decided to continue the temporary protection from arrest for journalist Mohammed Zubair until February 27.
The case was presented before a bench consisting of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava.
This meant that until this date, the authorities cannot arrest him in connection with the case.
The court was supposed to hear the matter, but due to a shortage of time, the hearing could not take place as planned. Because of this, the case was postponed to a later date.
This case is linked to a First Information Report (FIR) that was filed against Mohammed Zubair. The FIR was lodged by some supporters of Yati Narsinghanand, who accused Zubair of “promoting enmity”. The allegations suggest that his actions or statements may have created divisions or tensions among different groups.
Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair on Feb 18th challenged the FIR filed against him by Ghaziabad Police in the Allahabad High Court. The FIR was lodged over his post on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), which highlighted an alleged controversial speech by Yati Narsinghanand.
Zubair has argued that his posts were made as part of his professional duty as a fact-checker and do not violate any laws under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Senior Advocate Dilip Kumar, representing Mohammed Zubair, asserted that his client was merely exercising his fundamental right to freedom of speech. He explained that Zubair had only referred to Yati Narsinghanand’s alleged provocative speech and pointed out his conduct. The lawyer also emphasized that multiple news portals and social media users had shared similar posts regarding the issue.
Additionally, Kumar highlighted that despite Yati Narsinghanand facing 24 criminal cases, authorities had failed to take any significant legal action against him. He further pointed out that even when an FIR was registered, it only invoked weak sections of the law.
During the hearing, Justice Srivastava raised concerns about Zubair’s role, stating:
“Would Mohammed Zubair decide the action? Is he shifting his role from a fact-checker to a fact decider?”
He further advised Zubair’s lawyer to focus on arguing that the journalist’s posts were protected under his right to free speech as per Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
Justice Srivastava also questioned whether an FIR could be partially quashed if only certain charges were deemed invalid.
“Can we quash the FIR if the offense is not made out under Section 152 BNS, or do we have to look at the initial sections under which the FIR was registered? Whether the FIR can be quashed partly if certain offenses are not made out… The question here is when a particular section is not there in the FIR and is added later… Can it be challenged by way of an amendment in your petition? How can you challenge it?”
The Court then directed Additional Advocate General Manish Goel to justify the application of Section 152 BNS in Zubair’s case. Zubair’s lawyer had strongly argued that Section 152 BNS was not applicable and that none of the charges mentioned in the FIR were supported by any valid evidence.
In response, Goel claimed that the controversy at Dasna, for which Zubair was booked, occurred as a result of his tweets. He further argued that Yati Narsinghanand never intended for a small, edited portion of his speech to be circulated online, as Zubair allegedly did.
BACKGROUND
The Ghaziabad Police filed the FIR against Zubair in October over his social media post featuring a video of Yati Narsinghanand. In the video, the seer is heard calling for the end of Islam. Narsinghanand has previously been known for making inflammatory speeches and inciting violence against Muslims.
During an event in Ghaziabad on September 29, Narsinghanand was allegedly heard urging people to burn effigies of the Prophet. Following this, Udita Tyagi, General Secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust, filed a complaint on October 3, accusing Zubair of sharing an old video clip of Narsinghanand with the intent to provoke violence against him.
Based on the complaint, the Ghaziabad Police booked Zubair under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:
- Section 196 – Promoting enmity on religious grounds
- Section 228 – Fabricating false evidence
- Section 299 – Outraging religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs
- Section 356(3) – Defamation
- Section 351(2) – Criminal intimidation
Later, Section 152 of BNS was also added to the charges against him.
Challenging the FIR, Zubair argued before the High Court that his post did not incite violence or promote disharmony.
He stated,
“I merely alerted the police authorities about Yati Narsinghanand’s actions. This cannot amount to promoting ill-will or disharmony between two groups.”
Zubair emphasized that his actions were within the ambit of freedom of speech, stating,
“I was exercising my freedom of speech by referring to the alleged controversial speech of Yati Narsinghanand and highlighting his conduct.”
He also pointed out that several news articles and social media accounts had reported on the same issue, and
“I had not said anything different.”
CASE TITLE:
Mohammed Zubair v State & Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
