UP Police Invokes Offence Of Endangering Sovereignty, Unity Of India Against Mohammed Zubair Over His 'X Post', Allahabad HC Told
The Allahabad High Court was today informed that Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, has been added in the FIR lodged against Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair by Ghaziabad police last month.
The FIR has been filed pursuant to a complaint 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.
Zubair has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging the FIR.
Hearing the matter on November 25, the High Court directed the IO to file an affidavit by the next hearing, clearly specifying that the criminal sections invoked against Zubair.
Filing a reply in the Court today, the IO submitted that two new sections have been added to the FIR: Section 152 BNS and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act.
It may be noted that the FIR against Zubair was initially lodged 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).
Zubair has moved the High Court to seek quashing of the plea and protection from coercive action. In his plea, he has stated that his X post does not call for violence against Yati. He had merely alerted the police authorities about Narsinghanand's actions and sought action as per law, and this could not amount to promoting disharmony or ill-will between two classes of people.
He has also challenged the invocation of the Defamation provision under the BNS on the grounds that seeking action against Narsinghanand by sharing his own videos, which are already in the public domain, cannot amount to defamation,
The plea also states that at the time of making the derogatory remarks against the Prophet, Narsinghanand was on bail in another hate speech case, where his bail condition stipulated that he would not make any statements which promote communal disharmony.