Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Case Over Alleged Anti-National Facebook Posts Against PM Modi and RSS
The Allahabad High Court has declined to interfere in criminal proceedings initiated against two men accused of uploading allegedly anti-national and objectionable content on social media targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS).
Justice Saurabh Srivastava dismissed the petition filed by Jubair Ansari and Izahar Alam, who had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings, and the chargesheet submitted by the police before a Sonbhadra court last year.
While rejecting the plea, the Court observed that the allegations levelled against the accused prima facie appeared to be supported by the material collected during the investigation.
The judge noted that the trial court had already taken cognisance of the offences invoked by the police, and at this stage, there was no ground for exercising the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to terminate the proceedings.
In its observations, the Court referred to the role and public standing of the RSS, stating that the organisation has been serving different sections of society through its allied bodies for nearly a century.
The Court further remarked that Prime Minister Narendra Modi occupies a constitutional position after being elected indirectly through the democratic mandate given by citizens exercising their voting rights.
The Court said that the Facebook posts attributed to the accused could be viewed, on the face of the record, as a deliberate and malicious attempt capable of outraging sentiments and disturbing public harmony.
According to the Court, the social media posts targeted both the RSS and the Prime Minister in a manner that warranted judicial scrutiny during trial.
The accused are facing prosecution under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly promoting enmity between groups, spreading hatred, and attempting to incite breach of peace through their online statements.
As per the prosecution’s case, the Facebook profiles of the accused allegedly contained several posts which were described as anti-national and repeatedly directed against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the RSS.
Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued before the High Court that the FIR had been lodged with mala fide intent and that the accused were being falsely implicated merely to harass them.
However, the State opposed the plea and contended that sufficient material existed to allow the criminal trial to proceed in accordance with the law.
While considering the matter, the High Court made broader observations regarding the growing misuse of social media platforms.
The Court remarked that although digital platforms have made communication easier and enabled people to freely express their views and opinions, many individuals fail to realise the consequences of irresponsible online behaviour.
The judge observed that social media serves as a powerful platform where public opinion becomes visible to everyone, but at the same time, it is frequently misused through posts and comments that hurt sentiments and create large-scale social disharmony.
Referring to past incidents, the Court cited the misuse of social media during the year 2012, when morphed photographs and videos relating to victims of earthquakes were circulated online with misleading communal narratives connected to riots in Assam and Myanmar.
According to the Court, such fabricated content had been spread with the intention of provoking unrest and disturbing communal peace.
The Court also pointed out another concern relating to unrestricted internet access, observing that inappropriate and adult content has become easily accessible even to minors.
It is remarked that with increasing accessibility to the internet, drawing a clear line of restriction has become extremely difficult.
The High Court further elaborated on the applicability of Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, observing that the provision can be attracted where a social media post deliberately promotes hatred, enmity, or ill-will between different communities on grounds such as religion, race, language, caste, place of birth, or residence.
The Court noted that offences under the said provision are cognizable in nature, meaning that police authorities are empowered to register an FIR and make arrests without a warrant if such content is found capable of disrupting public order and communal harmony.
After examining the case records and submissions advanced by both sides, the Court concluded that it could not be said at this preliminary stage that no offence was made out against the accused persons.
Rejecting the plea for quashing, the Court held that the defence raised by the applicants regarding alleged false implication involves disputed questions of fact, which can only be properly examined by the trial court after appreciation of evidence during the course of trial.
In its order dated April 29, the High Court clarified that such factual disputes cannot be conclusively adjudicated while exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and therefore, the criminal proceedings against the accused would continue before the competent court.
