[Alleged FB Posts Against Lord Shiva] 'Laxman Rekha Shouldn't Be Crossed In Name Of Freedom Of Expression': HP High Court Denies Relief To A Doctor

On Monday, the Himachal Pradesh High Court denied anticipatory bail to a qualified ophthalmologist facing an FIR under Sections 295A IPC, 153A and 505 (2) IPC on the allegations of posting derogatory Facebook comments against Lord Shiva and Lord Nandi (the bull vahana of Lord Shiva.).

Noting that as per the allegations, the applicant (Dr. Nadeem Akhtar) has posted derogatory comments which have hurt the religious sentiments of a particular section, the bench of Justice Virender Singh noted that he is not a layman but an educated person, who is well aware of the effect of his alleged post and comments.

The Court further stressed that while residing in the society, every person must respect the religious beliefs of other members of the community and that in the name of freedom of expression, "the Laxman Rekha should not be crossed".

"Allowing the bail application, in this case, will also give a wrong signal to society and it will encourage other persons to make such type of comments, allegedly causing resentment in the minds of followers of the other religions, which is also not good for the secular fabric of the Country," the Court remarked as it dismissed his anticipatroy bail plea.

Essentially, a complaint was filed against the applicant (Akhtar) stating therein that he is habitual of posting such derogatory posts on his Facebook account against Lord Shiva and his act has outraged the religious feelings.

Following this complaint, an FIR was lodged against him under Section 295-A IPC and during the investigation, the police took print-outs of screenshots of the applicant’s Facebook ID containing alleged derogatory posts. Later on, Section 153A and 505 (2) IPC were added in the FIR.

On the Court's notice, a status report was filed before the Court apprising the bench of the objectionable posts on the Facebook profile of the applicant. Regarding his comment on Lord Shiva and Lord Nnadi, the status report averred that the applicant had claimed that his FB account was hacked by someone and the said post was made by someone else.

The Status report also pointed out that after making the derogatory comments, the applicant had searched on the Google search engine as to how to delete the data and how to modify the comments.

Lastly, it was also stated that due to the act of the applicant, leading to the insult of the religious feelings, there is a lot of resentment in the area and against the said Facebook post, certain demonstrations have also taken place.

Against this backdrop, underscoring that while deciding the question of bail, the Court is required to maintain a delicate balance between individual liberty and the larger interest of society, the Court made the following remark:

"As per the allegations in the FIR, social media has been used by the applicant for hurting the religious feelings of the followers of a particular religion. The police has specifically expressed certain apprehensions, in case, the interim order is made absolute...Considering all these facts and the ramification of the offences, alleged committed by the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for any relief, under Section 438 CrPC"

With this, the plea was dismissed.

Appearances 

For the applicant: Advocate Adarsh K. Vashishta

For the respondent: Additional Advocate Generals H.S. Rawat and Tejasvi Sharma along with Deputy Advocates General Leena Guleria and Avni Kochhar Mehta,,

For the complainants: Senior Advocate Ashok Sharma, with Advocates Onkar Jairath, Jyotirmay Bhatt, Ankit Dhiman, Gaurav Kaushal, Sushmit Bhatt and Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocates.

Case title - Dr Nadeem Akhtar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 55

Click Here To Read/Download Order