Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Over Alleged Anti-National Social Media Posts Against PM Modi and RSS

By Rajesh Pandey

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of criminal proceedings against individuals accused of posting allegedly anti-national and objectionable content on social media targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

In its order dated April 29, Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that the Facebook posts attributed to the accused prima facie appeared to be a “deliberate and malicious attempt” capable of outraging sentiments and disturbing social harmony.

The petition had been filed by Jubair Ansari and others, who sought quashing of the FIR registered against them in Sonbhadra last year, along with the chargesheet submitted by the police and the summons issued by the local court.

The accused have been booked under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including charges related to promoting enmity between communities, spreading rumours that could incite hatred or violence, provoking breach of peace, criminal intimidation, and acts committed with common intention.

According to the prosecution, the accused had allegedly shared anti-national and objectionable posts containing derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Investigators also alleged that the material circulated through Facebook accounts linked to a Pakistani YouTuber.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued before the High Court that the FIR was vague and lacked concrete evidence.

It was submitted that the complaint did not clearly specify the exact date and time of the alleged incident and that the case had been lodged with mala fide intentions merely to harass the accused.

The petitioners further argued that the magistrate had mechanically taken cognisance of the chargesheet without proper application of judicial mind and that the allegations were based solely on social media posts shared on Facebook.

Opposing the plea, the State government contended that the issues raised by the accused involved disputed questions of fact which could only be properly examined during trial and not at the stage of quashing proceedings.

While refusing to interfere in the matter, the High Court made detailed observations about the growing misuse of social media platforms in recent years.

The Court noted that while social media gives people the freedom to express opinions openly, there are occasions when individuals cross the line without understanding the consequences of their actions.

The Court observed that social media is increasingly being misused to post content that hurts sentiments and creates disharmony within society on a large scale.

Justice Srivastava remarked that freedom of expression on social networking platforms must be exercised responsibly and not misused. Stressing the need for social accountability, the Court said every individual has a duty towards society before posting content online.

Referring to past instances of misinformation, the Court cited the 2012 incident in which morphed images and videos of earthquake victims were circulated on social media with false claims linking them to communal violence in Assam and Myanmar.

According to the Court, such fabricated content was spread with the intention of provoking unrest and had triggered public reactions at the time.

The bench also expressed concern over the easy accessibility of adult and pornographic content on social media and internet platforms, particularly among minors.

The Court observed that unrestricted internet access was contributing to changing social behaviour and creating new challenges for society.

After examining the records, the High Court held that, at this stage, it could not be concluded that no offence was made out against the accused persons.

The Court further observed that the allegations of false implication raised by the applicants were factual issues that required proper examination by the trial court based on evidence produced during proceedings.

Rejecting the plea, the Court stated that while exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court cannot conduct a “mini-trial” to assess disputed facts.

Finding no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Sonbhadra, the High Court concluded that no interference was warranted and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.