Not for court to judge if Mohammed Zubair's posts against Narsinghanand could incite violence: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday said that a "lot many psychological angles" and "the sociological built of the country" would have to be looked into while probing the criminal case filed against Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair for his posts against Yati Narsinghanand..A Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Yogendra Kumar Srivastava made the observation while declining to quash a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that Zubair's social media posts had provoked people against Narsinghanand.Even as it decided to extend the protection from arrest to Zubair, the Court said,"We are also aware that allegations made in the first information report might be found to be false by the Investigating Agency. Investigation in this case is to be done both subjectively and objectively. A lot many psychological angles would have to be looked into. Not only that, the sociological built of the country would also have to be looked into." It added that "a false implication might prejudice the rights as are guaranteed to an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.".On its decision to not quash the proceedings, the Court observed that the impact of Zubair's posts highlighting Narsinghanad's speeches could only be examined by the investigating agencies.The Court added that the fact-checker was an "influential person" whose posts, if misunderstood, could definitely affect a fairly large number of people of the country. However, the Bench said that the Court does not possess a scale by which "it could fathom as to how much would be the effect of the utterances and the tweets of the petitioner on the population of the country.""India is a country which has a variety of religions, tribes and races and they have all merged together and are very peacefully living together. Whether restraint was being exercised by the petitioner would be something which would have to be looked into by the investigating agencies," the Court said..Though the Court acknowledged that Zubair’s statements did not appear to violate the right to freedom of speech and expression, it said that only an investigation can reveal whether any offence was committed. It also noted that Court was not aware of the inputs available with the State."If a person felt that police was not taking action and was expressing disapprobation of the measures taken by the administration then definitely he could express the same but whether those expressions excited secession or armed rebellion or could encourage feelings of separatist activities and as a result endanger sovereignty or unity of the country, could be looked into and judged by the investigating agencies alone," it added..On the claim that Zubair's posts could lead to secession or armed rebellion, the Court said,"Even if the petitioner (Zubair) was tweeting truncated version of the speech of Yati Narasinghanand Giri, he was definitely trying to convey the gist of the speech of his and wanted State action against him. In this process whether secession or armed rebellion could be brewed is not for this Court to judge. The investigating agencies would be better equipped in these days with modern technologies to look into the allegations made.".The Court also opined that Section 152 (promoting enmity) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) serves as a safeguard for the State against seditious acts by individuals. "Whether it was being used to gag the voice of anyone commenting on the way the State was functioning would again be a subject matter of investigation," it added.In conclusion, the Court said that a reading of the FIR does not reveal that the offences are not made out."Thus, since in the instant case we find that in fact investigation was required and a bare reading of the first information report definitely showed that to a large extent the offences could be made out, we refrain from interfering in the case and leave it to the sagacity of the Investigating Agency to come to a proper conclusion. Definitely, the truth had yet to emerge and that would happen only after a fair investigation.".Zubair stands accused of endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India under Section 152 of the BNS over a post on X saying that a speech delivered by Narsinghanand was "derogatory and hateful".The post was in response to a speech delivered by Narsinghanand, who has been charged with hate speech on previous occasions, in which he allegedly made remarks against Prophet Muhammad.Several FIRs were then registered against Narsinghanand in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Telangana for inciting communal hatred and hurting religious sentiments..After Zubair's post, a complaint was filed by Udita Tyagi, General Secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Foundation. Tyagi alleged that on October 3, 2024, Zubair shared an old video clip of Narsinghanand with the intent to incite violence against him. The complaint blamed Zubair, Arshad Madani and Asaduddin Owaisi for the violent protests that took place at Dasna Devi Mandi.Ghaziabad Police then charged Zubair under Sections 196 (promoting enmity on religious grounds), 228 (fabricating false evidence), 299 (outraging religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs), 356(3) (defamation), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the BNS.Later, the offence under Section 152 (promoting enmity) of BNS was also added. Zubair then moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and also for protection from arrest..Senior Advocate Dileep Kumar and Advocates Devaang Savla, Rajrshi Gupta and Tanmay Sadh appeared for Zubair.Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and Advocates Pankaj Saxena, and AK Sand appeared for the State.Advocates Kapil Tyagi and Adhitya Srinivasan appeared for the informant..[Read Order]