Today, On 18th December, During hearing on Alt-News Co-founder Mohammed Zubair’s plea, the Allahabad High Court stated, “Whatever Yati Narsinghanand says, you cannot go to social media.” Zubair is challenging an FIR that accuses him of promoting enmity through a post on ‘X.’ The court highlighted the importance of addressing grievances through legal avenues instead of social media. The case focuses on finding a balance between free speech and its potential misuse in inciting public unrest.
The Allahabad High Court heard a plea filed by Alt-News Co-founder Mohammed Zubair, challenging an FIR accusing him of ‘promoting enmity’ through a post on ‘X’ about #YatiNarsinghanand.
A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi heard the matter.
The hearing regarding Zubair’s social media posts took an intriguing turn following a change in the bench due to Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi‘s unavailability.
Initially set to be heard by Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Rizvi, the case is now being examined by Justice Varma along with Justice Ram Manohar N. Mishra.
During the proceedings, the bench scrutinized the sections of the FIR against Zubair, questioning their language and applicability.
Justice Varma remarked on Section 152 of the BNS, saying,
“What is this language? ‘Imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years.’ Is it the other way? Ulta likh gaya h?”
Zubair’s Senior Advocate pointed out that the FIR claimed the first disputed tweet was posted on October 3rd, which had received 7.7k views when the screenshot was captured.
Justice Varma inquired,
“Kitne log tweet padhte hain aapke?”
To which the Senior Counsel replied,
“People can read.”
Justice Varma noted,
“What I understand is that anyone can read your tweets.”
Addressing Zubair’s behaviour, Justice Varma questioned whether he should use social media to voice his grievances instead of going to court.
He stated,
“Your rights end where my nose begins. Whatever he (Yati) says, you cannot go to social media.”
The Senior Counsel argued that Zubair’s posts merely highlighted problematic speeches from individuals like Yati Narsinhanand, adding that previous FIRs against Zubair for similar actions had been consolidated by the Supreme Court.
The Counsel emphasized that while Zubair faced immediate FIRs, no action had been taken against Yati.
Justice Varma responded,
“Have you lodged an FIR (against Yati)? I will look at your conduct… If you don’t like his (Yati’s) speech, face, you should file an FIR.”
Regarding the applicability of Section 152, the Senior Counsel mentioned that earlier sections of the FIR carried punishments of fewer than seven years, but Section 152 was added later, allowing for
“Imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years.”
The bench expressed skepticism about the relevance of this addition.
Justice Varma also questioned the government’s counsel, asking,
“If the police are not taking action on the FIRs, can resentment be shown in the public?”
The Additional Advocate General (AAG) clarified that chargesheets had been filed against Yati, referencing Supreme Court judgments and American principles on free speech. The AAG argued that “tweets causing lawless action” warranted restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Additionally, the Additional Advocate General (AAG) stated that Zubair’s post on ‘X’ regarding the alleged speech was a misrepresentation. He also informed the court that a lookout notice has been issued against Zubair. In light of these submissions, the court requested a brief counter that included both the AAG’s arguments and clarification on whether the first informant was aware of Zubair’s alleged tweet.
The case set to be heard again on Friday, December 20.
For context, Zubair currently facing an FIR filed by the Ghaziabad Police last month, accusing him of inciting enmity between religious groups following a complaint from an associate of the controversial priest Yati Narsinghanand.
The FIR lodged by Udita Tyagi, general secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust, who claimed that Zubair posted a video clip from an old program featuring Narsinghanand on October 3, intending to provoke violence against him by Muslims. The complaint further alleges that Zubair shared edited clips of the priest on ‘X’ that contained Narsinghanand’s purported inflammatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad, aimed at inciting radical sentiments against the priest. In his post, Zubair described Narsinghanand’s alleged speech as “derogatory.”
Zubair has been charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 196 (promoting enmity between different religious groups), Section 228 (fabricating false evidence), Section 299 (deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings), Section 356(3) (defamation), and Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation). Last month, the High Court learned that Section 152 of the BNS, which addresses acts threatening the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, had also been invoked against Zubair, and that the investigation is being conducted with thorough attention.
In response to the FIR, Zubair moved to the High Court, arguing that his post did not incite violence against Yati. He contended that he merely alerted the police about Narsinghanand’s conduct and sought legal action, asserting that his actions could not be construed as promoting discord between communities.
Earlier, a bench consisting of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar recused themselves from the case, after which it was reassigned to the bench of Justice Varma and Justice Mishra.