The Allahabad High Court has rejected a petition aimed at nullifying a First Information Report (FIR) and chargesheet that accused individuals of posting “anti-national and objectionable content” regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on social media.
In its ruling, the court determined that the Facebook posts made by the petitioners represented a “deliberate and malicious attempt” to provoke religious sentiments.
Justice Saurabh Srivastava, in an order issued on April 29, remarked, “The applicant’s actions in portraying the RSS, an organization that has served various societal segments for the past century, alongside the Prime Minister, who is indirectly elected by a majority of the nation’s voters, are concerning.”
The petitioners, Jubair Ansari and others, sought the High Court’s intervention to annul the case initiated against them last year in Sonbhadra district. They were charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including those related to spreading false information, promoting religious enmity, and inciting violence.
Additionally, the petitioners requested the court to dismiss the chargesheet filed in May and the summons issued by the local court in November.
The FIR alleged that the petitioners and another accused shared derogatory and anti-national posts about the Prime Minister, claiming these posts originated from a Facebook account linked to a Pakistani YouTuber.
In their defense, the applicants, through their legal representative, argued that the FIR lacked specific details regarding the incident and was filed with malicious intent. They contended that the document was vague, lacking substantial evidence, and aimed at harassing them.
The applicants also claimed that the magistrate had issued the summons in a perfunctory manner, without proper judicial consideration.
The defense maintained that the allegations stemmed solely from a Facebook post.
The Additional Government Advocate contested the petition, asserting that the applicants’ arguments were matters for trial and could not be resolved at this stage.
The court acknowledged the “misuse of social media today,” noting that individuals frequently express their views openly online. However, it cautioned that sometimes, this freedom can lead to postings that disregard the potential consequences, which can incite societal discord.
The court remarked, “Social media serves as a platform for expressing opinions on various issues, but such rights should not be exploited. Individuals bear a responsibility to society when sharing content on these platforms.” It cited a 2012 incident where manipulated images of earthquake victims were circulated to incite further riots, highlighting the potential for social media misuse.
The bench also pointed out the accessibility of inappropriate content on social media, which could adversely affect societal behavior.
In conclusion, the court stated that it could not determine at this time whether the applicants had committed an offense. The claims of wrongful implication raised by the applicants are factual matters that necessitate thorough examination by the trial court. The High Court chose not to conduct a preliminary trial and found no substantial flaws in the previous order issued by the Additional Civil Judge in Sonbhadra. Consequently, the application was deemed without merit and was dismissed.
