Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Mohammed Zubair – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Siddhartha Varma, J.
1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tanmay Sadh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena, Sri A.K. Sand, learned Government Advocate. Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the informant was heard along with Sri Adhitya Srinivasan who appeared through Video Conference.
2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the First Information Report dated 7.10.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No.992 of 2024 against the petitioner-Mohd. Zubair lodged under sections 196, 228, 299, 356(3), 351(2) and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under section 66 of the Information Technology Act be quashed.
3. The brief facts leading to the lodging of the FIR are that on 3.10.2024, the petitioner had tweeted certain messages at 9.30 pm. Thereafter on 4.10.2024 he had again tweeted at 11 hours and 08 minutes and thereafter on 5.10.2024 he had again done so at 12.38 PM. Thereafter and as a result of the tweets, specifically the one that was made on 3.10.2024, in the night of 4.10.2024 at Dasna Devi Temple, certain persons attacked a temple. The FIR
The court held that the intent behind tweets must be assessed carefully, and freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and national integrity.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proximate and direct nexus between expression and public disorder, and the need for evidence to establish mens rea in cases involving incitement of violence.
The court ruled it inappropriate to quash a FIR at the investigative stage unless a clear case for quashing is established, emphasizing police prerogative in investigating alleged offences.
Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) when it risks public order and national integrity.
It cannot be said that the assertions made in the FIR are unbelievable. In the given facts and circumstances on the record, and in view of the submissions made at the Bar.
(1) Hurting religious and social sentiments of one community – Acceptance of freedom to express a view which may not accord with mainstream are cardinal values – A society wedded to rule of law canno....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
