'PM Disrespected, Investigation Justified': Allahabad High Court Rejects Singer Neha Rathore's Plea Against FIR Over Pahalgam Terror Attack Posts
The Allahabad High Court on Friday rejected a plea filed by folk singer Neha Singh Rathore challenging an FIR lodged against her under multiple charges, including "endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India" over her allegedly 'provocative' social media posts on the Pahalgam Terror Attack. A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi...
The Allahabad High Court on Friday rejected a plea filed by folk singer Neha Singh Rathore challenging an FIR lodged against her under multiple charges, including "endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India" over her allegedly 'provocative' social media posts on the Pahalgam Terror Attack.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi noted that the allegations in the FIR and other material prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation into the matter.
The division bench added that in the alleged social media posts, the name of the Prime Minister of India has been used in a derogatory and disrespectful manner, and even the Home Minister has been targeted.
"In such comments, the petitioner has used religious angle, Bihar election angle accusing the Prime Minister by name and saying that the B.J.P. Government is sacrificing the life of thousands of soldiers for its vested interest pushing the country in a war with a neighbouring country", the bench observed while perusing the case diary.
The Court also opined that although Article 19 of the Constitution of India gives all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, the same applies to reasonable restrictions for preserving, inter alia, public order, decency or morality.
"It is trite in law that the extent of protection of speech and expression would depend on whether, such speech and expression would constitute a propagation of ideas or would have any social value. If the answer to the said question is in affirmative, such speech would be protected under Article 19 (1) (a); if the answer is in negative, such speech and expression would not be protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India", the Court observed.
Briefly put, the complaint against Thakur was filed by one Abhay Pratap Singh, who claimed that Rathore, using her Twitter [now X] handle, made some objectionable posts that can adversely affect national integrity and that she made repeated efforts to incite one community against another based on religion.
Based on the complaint, Hazraptganj (Lucknow) police lodged a case against her under multiple charges under BNS, including attempting to promote sectarian animosity, disturbing public tranquillity and endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Before the Court, her counsel argued that as a singer and a social activist, she has a 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 a fundamental right.
Her counsel also submitted that the allegations of the FIR do not attract the ingredients of those sections under which the FIR has been lodged.
The state, on the other hand, argued that when the security and integrity of the country were under threat during the Pahalgam terror attack and the Government was making all possible efforts to curb such a situation, Rathore started making provocative tweets without thinking that the situation was sensitive.
It was also contended that Rathore had commented on the State politics of Bihar with an ulterior motive and extraneous design. It was submitted that she tried to create the Hindu-Muslim angle; therefore, the petitioner distorted the basic fabric of the country, where Hindus and Muslims live together peacefully.
Taking into account the submissions of both sides and after perusing the FIR allegations and the relevant portion of the case diary, the Court said that it was convinced that the allegations in the FIR and other material prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by the police officers.
However, the court dismissed the plea without commenting on the merits of the issue and with the expectation that an impartial investigation would be conducted.
Before parting, the Court directed Rathore to participate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer on September 26 to cooperate in the probe until the police report is filed.
Advocates Kamal Kishore Sharma and Kaustubh Singh appeared for the petitioner
Government Advocate (Dr.) V. K. Singh, assisted by AGA SN Tilhari, and State counsel Vipul Kumar Singh, appeared for the state.