'Critiquing Govt A Part Of Freedom Of Speech, Judiciary Also Open To Criticism': Allahabad HC Remarks Orally On Zubair's FIR Quashing Plea

Today, the Allahabad High Court once again extended the stay on the arrest of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair until February 19 in connection with an FIR against him over his alleged X Post (formerly Twitter) on Yati Narsinghanand's 'derogatory' speech.

During the hearing, a bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava orally remarked that a government can be criticized on any aspect and the same is a part of freedom of speech and expression. The bench also said that as an institution, even the Judiciary was open to criticism. 

J. Srivastava : We as an institution are also open to criticism

Goyal : I read somewhere that a piece of news which is older than 24 hrs is not news, it has become scandalous

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 18, 2025

The remark was made in response to AAG Manish Goyal's argument, where he, representing the state government, sought to differentiate between criticizing the government and criticizing the decisions of the government.

The bench also orally remarked that since Section 124A IPC (Sedition) was stifling dissent, Parliament, in its wisdom, chose not to include an equivalent provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and instead introduced Section 152 BNS [Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India]. 

The bench made these observations while hearing Zubair's FIR quashing plea, wherein he has contended that the 'X' posts containing 'derogatory' speech of Yati Narsinghananad, the chief priest of Dasna Temple (Ghaziabad) were a part of his professional obligation and the same was to highlight the inaction of the police machinery.

During his arguments, AAG Goyal for the state also argued that misleading narratives, like the one created by Zubair, erode public trust in the government, judiciary, and constitution, fueling anger and misinformation.

"...not having faith in the government at all..or to create a narrative to this extent (as done by Zubair). Constitution, judiciary and government, all the wings. What kind of narrative do you want to draw coupled with the fact that what kind of audience you are targeting?...The anger that it gushes and the loss of faith because of informed mind of this misinformation, the informed mind will take a decision on the basis of this truncated version and disinformation. Loss of faith in all institutions"

As reported by LiveLaw earlier today, the government, led by AAG Manish Goyal, strongly argued that by posting on 'X' about Yati Narsinghananad's edited speech, Zubair had created a narrative through his X posts and attempted to incite the public. AAG Goyal also questioned the timing of Zubair's 'X' posts as he argued that the fact checker had added fuel to the fire. AAG Goyal also submitted that being a person of significant influence, Zubair's tweets are read and retweeted, which has a rippling effect.

More details of the State Government arguments here : 'X' Posts Case | 'Police Took Action Against Narsinghanand; Zubair Built Narrative, Tried To Incite People': UP Govt In Allahabad HC

On the other hand, arguing for Zubair, Senior Advocate Dilip Kumar yesterday submitted before the division bench that his client was exercising his freedom of speech by referring to the alleged controversial speech of Yati Narsinghanand and highlighting his conduct, and not just him, but many new articles and social media accounts had posted about the same issue.

The hearing in the matter will continue tomorrow.