Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI
Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
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.
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
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
