Allahabad HC denies relief to singer Neha Singh Rathore booked for tweets on PM Modi

The Lucknow Bench at Allahabad High Court on Friday refused to grant folk singer Neha Singh Rathore anticipatory bail in the criminal case registered against her for allegedly posting a tweet that targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi and commented on the Pahalgam terrorist attack [Neha Singh Rathore v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.].

Justice Brij Raj Singh noted that the tweets in question were made at a crucial time after the terror attack and had referred to the Prime Minister in a “disrespectful" manner.

The Court ultimately refused to grant her anticipatory bail, observing that the allegations required a full investigation rather than pre-trial protection. It also rejected arguments that Rathore had merely expressed her freedom of speech.

"Although Article 19 of the Constitution of India gives right of freedom to all citizens, but the same is subject to reasonable restriction for public order, decency or morality. The applicant (Rathore) had made certain tweets at the crucial time when the unfortunate Pahalgam incident took place on 22.04.2025 and the case diary as well as FIR goes to show that tweets posted by the applicant are against the Prime Minister of India. Name of the Prime Minister of India has been used in disrespectful manner," it held.

The case relates to Rathore’s social media posts made shortly after a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, in which 26 Hindu tourists were killed.

The FIR was lodged at Hazratganj Police Station, Lucknow, under multiple Sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), as well as Section 69(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (IT Act), which empowers the government to block objectionable online content. The charges range from inciting disruptive acts and obstructing public servants (Sections 196, 353 of BNS) to affecting national integrity (Section 152).

The police said Rathore’s posts criticised Prime Minister Modi for holding a political rally in Bihar soon after the Pahalgam terror attack and suggested the government was using the tragedy for political purposes.

Rathore's counsel contended that her posts were protected by Article 19 (1)(a) (freedom of speech) of the Constitution, as they were expressions of dissent.

They argued that expressing dissent or criticising government policies, even in strong terms, does not amount to a criminal offence unless there is a clear intention to incite violence or threaten national security.

They said her posts were political commentary and public discourse, made in the context of discussing the government’s response to the Pahalgam attack, and not aimed at creating public disorder.

The State countered that some of her content had been shared abroad, including in Pakistan, and could influence public opinion and impact national security.

The State's counsel contended that Rathore's tweets were not warranted at a time when the government was taking all steps to combat national security threats.

The State added that Rathore's tweets were malicious, and that by such comments, Rathore also tried to create hatred between Hindus and Muslims.

The Court held that the timing of the posts, immediately after the Pahalgam attack, and the direct references to the Prime Minister, created a situation where public order could potentially have been affected.

The Court also noted that Rathore had earlier challenged the FIR by filing a petition before the High Court. This petition was rejected on September 19, with the Court directing her to cooperate with the police investigation. She then took the matter to the Supreme Court.

However, on October 13, the Supreme Court also refused to interfere with the investigation, allowing her to raise any objections later when the formal charges are framed.

During hearings of the present anticipatory bail plea, investigating officers reported that Rathore had repeatedly failed to appear before them, changed her address multiple times, and did not cooperate with the inquiry.

The Court factored this aspect as well while dismissing Rathore's anticipatory bail.

However, it clarified that Rathore is still entitled to raise all her legal objections later, either during the trial or when the trial court considers whether formal charges should be framed.

Arguments for Neha Singh Rathore were led by Senior Advocate Purnendu Chakravarty. Advocates Kaustubh Singh, Arpit Verma and Shivanshu Goswami also appeared for Rathore.

Government Advocate VK Singh, assisted by Additional Government Advocate Rajdeep Singh, represented the State.

[Read Order]