Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, JJ.
Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3852 of 2025
Decided On : 19-09-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner, a singer and social activist, filed a writ petition to quash an FIR lodged against her for social media posts, claiming her fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (!) (!) .
The FIR was registered under multiple sections, including those related to social media posts, incitement, and offences against public order and national integrity (!) .
The petitioner argued that the allegations do not establish a prima facie case under the cited sections and that her social media posts are protected under her constitutional right to free speech (!) (!) .
The government advocate contended that the content of the posts, especially timing and context, posed a threat to public order and national integrity, justifying the FIR and ongoing investigation (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that freedom of speech is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted to maintain public order, decency, or morality, especially when the speech incites violence or disrupts harmony (!) (!) .
The court found that the allegations, supported by the case diary and content of the social media posts, prima facie, disclose cognizable offences justifying police investigation (!) (!) .
The court referred to legal principles that restrict the scope of judicial interference during ongoing investigations, highlighting that the investigation should proceed without judicial overreach unless the allegations are frivolous or mala fide (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the petition, noting that the investigation is in progress and the petitioner is required to cooperate and participate in the process (!) (!) .
The court held that the restrictions imposed by law on free speech are reasonable when aimed at safeguarding public order, sovereignty, and national integrity, especially in sensitive situations (!) (!) .
Overall, the court underscored that the right to free speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and that the allegations in the FIR, supported by the evidence, justify further investigation, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial hearings and relief sought by the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on fir's lack of basis and freedom of speech. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. government advocate's arguments and references to legality. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's observations on balancing rights and restrictions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. final ruling on the dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Kamal Kishore Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri (Dr.) V. K. Singh, learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri S. N. Tilhari, learned AGA and Sri Vipul Kumar Singh, learned State counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 27.04.2025, lodged by opp-party no.2 at Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow, registered as Case Crime No.0111 of 2025, under Sections 196(1)(a), 196(1)(b), 197(1)(a), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(c), 353(2), 302, 152 of BNS , 2023 and 69a of the IT Act, 2008, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opp- party no.3, not to arrest, humiliate, harass, and victimize the petitioners, on the basis of the impugned First Information Report dated 27.04.2025, registered as Case Crime No.0111 of 2025, under Section 196(1)(a), 196(1)(b), 197(1)(a), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(c), 353(2), 302, 152 of BNS , 2023 and 69a of the IT Act, 2008, at Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow, as contained in Annexure no.1."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention towards the impugned FIR which has been lodged under so many sections levelling allegations against the petitioner. He has also submitted that, prima facie, those offences do not make out against her. Sri Sharma has further stated that the petitioner is a singer and a social activist and is having fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India to express her views on social media and no authority of the State can violate such fundamental right.
4. Sri Sharma has drawn attention of this Court towards the grounds: L, M, N & O of the writ petition saying that the allegations of the FIR do not attract the ingredients of those sections under which the FIR has been lodged. For the convenience, grounds: L to O reads as under:
"L. Because even if the post of the accused petitioner spoken by words has become viral amongst different groups of the person will not attract any of the provisions of Sections 197(1)(a), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 197(1)(d). Such post of petitioner having become viral in our country or other countries cannot in any manner be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony among the various groups of person belonging to different caste and religion hence the registration of the FIR under the aforesaid section is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law.
M. Because not even a single ingredient of this Section also is prima facie made out because the petitioner has not made or published or circulated any statement or any so-called false information including electronic means which would amount to having incited any class or community or any person to commit any offence against any other class and community.
N. Because by reading each and every content of the FIR sought to be quashed even through the magnifying glasses no person having the common knowledge of the observation can say that the words spoken, written and published by the accused would have excited cessation or armed rebellion or subversive activity encouraging feelings of separatists or endangering sovereignty and integrity of India making the accused liable for the imprisonment of life. The leveling of such allegation of such a higher magnitude without any iota of evidence seem
Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) when it risks public order and national integrity.
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.
(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....
Posting of offensive Tweet – Freedom of speech encompasses right to dissent, critique and express political discontent and criminal prosecution in matters of expression must be reserved only for case....
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.
(1) Quashing Petition – In glaring cases of deprivation of liberty, Apex Court has entertained petitions under Article 32 of Constitution. (2) Sedition – A citizen has right to say or write whatever ....
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
