Allahabad High Court refuses to quash case against two over Facebook posts about PM Narendra Modi, RSS

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash the criminal prosecution against two men who are alleged to have posted "anti-national" and objectionable posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh(RSS) [Jubair Ansari And Another v State of UP and Another]

Justice Saurabh Srivastava rejected a petition moved by accused Jubair Ansari and Izahar Alam for quashing of the case as well as the chargesheet filed by the police before a Sonbhadra court last year.

The Court said the allegations against the accused prima facie stand corroborated as the trial court has taken cognizance of the offences invoked by the police.

The Court said that RSS is an organisation that has been rendering its services to the various sections of society with its allied groups for last 100 years. It added that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been elected by the majority of citizens.

"Through the post initiated by the applicant over Facebook amounted to a “deliberate and malicious attempt” to outrage religious feelings. “...on the face of it, the conduct of the applicant in depicting the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh(RSS), which is a organisation rendering its services to the various sections of society with its allied organisation for last 100 years, along with the Prime Minister of this country who is indirectly elected by the majority of citizen of our country who invoked their right to vote for a particular political party," the Court said.

The accused are facing charges under Sections 196(1)(a), 351(2), 352 & 353(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly promoting enmity in the society and attempting to provoke breach of peace with their statements.

It was alleged that the Facebook account of accused persons shows that almost every post was anti-national, against Prime Minster Narendra Modi and RSS.

The counsel representing the accused argued that the FIR was a result of a malicious intent to harass them. On the other hand, the State said the case should be allowed to proceed before the trial court. 

Considering the submissions, the Court at the outset said that people on social media sometimes cross the line by uploading posts without understanding the consequence of their acts.

"One way, if we consider life has become very easy and easily accessible where people can get together and express their views on certain issues. It is one way very good where the views of the people are known to everyone. But sometimes the Social Media is misused where people post such comments which hurts the feelings of others and triggers disharmony on a large scale," the judge said.

The Court said that while social media can be used to express views and opinions about any issues, the rights should not be misused or overused. It went on to flag instances when social media was misused in the past.

"In 2012, one of the early cases of misuse of Social Media came to the Government’s attention, when morphed pictures and videos of earthquake victims began to go viral on the Social Media. Miscreants were morphing these images to show that these women were Muslim victims of civil riots in Assam and Burma. This was done to provoke further riots by vested interest and it did bring a reaction."

The Court added that another drawback of the social media is that adult videos or porn videos are also easily accessible by minors.

"Accessing the internet has become so easy these days that it is difficult to draw the line of restriction," it said in an order passed on April 29.

The Court further said that Section 196(1)(a) of the BNS is attracted to a Facebook post when the content deliberately promotes enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community.

"Under this section, a post can lead to a cognizable offence (meaning police can register an FIR and arrest without a warrant), if it disrupts public harmony," the Bench said.

Considering the material on record, the Court said it cannot be said that no offence was made out against the accused.

"The assertions of false implication raised by the applicants are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS," the Bench said, while dismissing the quashing plea.

Advocate Deepak Kumar Singh represented the accused.

[Read Judgment]