Why Create Social Disharmony? : Allahabad HC Questions Mohd Zubair For Posting On 'X' About Yati Narsinghanand Speech Instead Of Filing FIR

A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra also orally remarked that glancing through his (Zubair's) tweet showed that he was trying to create unrest.

“If this person (referring to Yati Narsinhanand) is acting funny, then instead of going to the police, will you act more funny? Have you lodged an FIR against him? I will look at your conduct. If you don't like his (Yati) speech, face, you should file an FIR against him” the division bench orally remarked.

Before the Court, the Senior Counsel representing Zubair argued that his client was simply exercising his freedom of speech by referring to the alleged speech of Yati Narsinghanand and highlighting his conduct.

The Counsel further stated that not just Zubair but many new articles and social media accounts had posted about the same issue, and Zubair had not said anything different. He added that an FIR was lodged against Yati 3 hours before his client's tweet. However, he did not know that the FIR had been lodged.

However, unimpressed with his arguments, Justice Varma orally observed that it was not appropriate for Zubair to go to 'X' and post about the alleged speech.

“Come to the court then…you will go to social media handle… create social disharmony?...Whatever he (Yati) says, you cannot go to social media…Who denies that Twitter cannot be used, but you cannot use it to instigate unrest.. glancing at the tweet shows that you are trying to create unrest.”

Justice Varma also asked whether there was any law that permits an individual to resort to Twitter instead of approaching the court. In response, the Senior Counsel submitted that he could demonstrate that the Supreme Court had allowed such recourse.

Here, it may be noted that in 2022, while granting interim bail to Zubair in all FIRs registered by the Uttar Pradesh Police over his tweets, the Supreme Court refused to impose a bail condition that he should not tweet.

"It is like telling a lawyer that you should not argue. How can we tell a journalist that he will not write or utter a word?", Justice Chandrachud had orally told UP AAG Garima Prashad.

During the hearing, the Allahabad High Court also asked the Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing for the state whether resentment could be expressed in public if the police is not taking action on the FIRs lodged against an individual. The Court further inquired from him as to how Section 152 BNS was made out against Zubair.

In response, the AAG argued that the right to freedom of speech, as claimed by Zubair's counsel, is not absolute and can be curtailed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. He added that this was a clear case where there was a proximity between the 'X' post (tweet) and the lawless action of the public, as alleged in the FIR.

Furthermore, the AAG also submitted that Zubair 'X' post version about the alleged speech was distorted. He also informed the court that a look out notice has also been issued against Zubair.

In view of these submissions, the Court, while calling for a small counter making his submissions as well as specifying whether the first informant was aware of the alleged tweet of Zubair.

The matter will now come up for a hearing on Friday, 20^th December.

For the uninitiated, Zubair is facing an FIR lodged by the Ghaziabad Police last month accusing him of promoting enmity among religious groups following a complaint by an associate of controversial priest Yati Narsinghanand.

The FIR against Zubair has been lodged by Udita Tyagi, general secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust, claiming that Zubair posted a video clip of an old programme of Narsinghanand's on October 3 with the intent to provoke violence by Muslims against him.

It has also been alleged in the complaint that Zubair posted edited clips of the priest on X (formerly Twitter), containing Narsinghanand's alleged incendiary remarks on Prophet Muhammad, to incite radical sentiments against the controversial priest. In his X Post, he called the alleged speech of Narsinghanand 'derogatory'.

Zubai was booked under sections 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 228 (fabricating false evidence), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 356(3) (defamation) and 351(2) (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Last month, the HC was informed that it had invoked Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, against Zubair and that it is probing the case with utmost sincerity and due diligence.

Challenging the FIR, Zubair moved the HC, contending that his X post does not call for violence against Yati. He had merely alerted the police authorities about Narsinghanand's actions. He sought action as per law, and this could not amount to promoting disharmony or ill-will between two classes of people.

Earlier this month, a bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar RECUSED from hearing Zubair's plea. Following this, the matter came before a bench of Justice Varma and Justice Mishra.