J&K High Court Declines Man's Plea Against FIR Over Social Media Posts Calling For Violence Against Non-Kashmiri's Living In Kashmir Valley

Justice Sanjay Dhar, while rejecting the petition, made strong observations about the nature and impact of the petitioner's online activity, noting that the "posts are bluntly prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between various communities."

At the heart of the controversy were multiple Facebook posts attributed to the petitioner, which the Court found to have a clear tendency to promote enmity on the basis of place of birth and residence. One such post called upon Village, Mohalla, and Town Committees in Kashmir to unite and ensure that not a single non-local lives in their areas. It even urged people to expel all non-Kashmiris from the Valley.

The Court highlighted that such a call for collective action against a community on grounds of origin starkly threatens social cohesion.

Justice Dhar further noted that the posts extended beyond hate speech and ventured into explicit threats. In particular, the posts threatened administrative officials involved in issuing domicile certificates to non-Kashmiris and called for their social boycott. The rhetoric, according to the Court, incited the local population to "collectively fight against settler colonialism," thereby fostering deep-rooted division.

Another post submitted by the respondents went even further, calling for the boycott of India and Indian companies and advocating for a movement against the Indian state itself. According to the said post, such measures would coerce India into relinquishing Kashmir. The Court remarked that such content does not just strain communal relations but also undermines the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

“From a bare reading of the aforesaid posts, one does not have to think twice before coming to the conclusion that these posts have the tendency of promoting enmity between Kashmiris and other people living in the Country”, the court said and added,

“The posts are bluntly prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between various communities and these are likely to disturb public tranquillity. Thus, it cannot be stated by any stretch of reasoning that these posts do not constitute any cognizable offence, as has been contended in the petition”

The Court concluded that it would be untenable to argue that such posts do not constitute a cognizable offence. Therefore, it found no merit in the contention that the FIR lacked legal basis.

Addressing the petitioner's argument that the URL mentioned in the FIR did not lead to any post attributable to him, the Court clarified that such factual disputes are to be resolved during the course of investigation. It cautioned that proceedings under Section 482 CrPC are not intended to be mini-trials for verifying digital links or their ownership.

Justice Dhar also considered procedural infirmities in the petition itself. Notably, although the petition had been filed during the Covid-19 pandemic when courts allowed virtual filings l, the petitioner had failed to file the original signed petition or the original vakalatnama after physical court proceedings resumed. Further, the affidavit supporting the application for interim relief was found to be defective it was allegedly sworn in Malaysia and was neither attested by a competent authority nor re-submitted in proper form post-resumption.

In conclusion, the Court held that the content of the posts in question was sufficient to justify criminal investigation under Sections 153, 153-A, 505, and 506 IPC. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Mubeen Ahmad Shah Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 211

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment