Yati Narsinghanand Case | Posted On 'X' As Part Of My Professional Obligation, No Offence Committed Under BNS/IPC: Mohd Zubair To Allahabad HC

Challenging the Ghaziabad Police's FIR lodged against Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair over his alleged X Post on Yati Narsinghanand's 'derogatory' speech, his counsel today submitted before the Allahabad High Court that Zubair's Posts were made as part of his professional obligation as a fact checker and that such posts do not amount to any offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or the Indian Penal Code.

Arguing for Zubair, Senior Advocate Dilip Kumar submitted before a bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava 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.

Kumar also argued that despite Yati Narsinghanand facing 24 criminal cases, the police authorities had not prosecuted him. He further pointed out that for any offence, an FIR was lodged only with weak sections, which Zubair highlighted in his tweets while demanding strict action against him.

"There is a reference (in the State's counter-affidavit) to 24 cases under S. 302 BNS (against Yati Narsinghanand). But there is no prosecution of this gentleman concerning these 24 cases...That is why my subsequent tweet was posted, stating that you (police authorities) have lodged the FIR against him under weak sections...There is no action against the man with so much criminal history. I also explained this to the IO after obtaining the interim order from this Court. I have never been to Ghaziabad (where FIR is lodged). I am running a fact-checking website in Bengaluru," Zubair's counsel submitted before the division bench.

For the uninitiated, Zubair is facing an FIR lodged by the Ghaziabad Police in October 2024, accusing him of promoting enmity among religious groups following a complaint by an associate of controversial priest Yati Narsinghanand. Zubair has moved the HC, challenging the FIR, under which the offence of Section 152 BNS [Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India] was added later on.

Before the High Court, his counsel vehemently argued that no sections, including Section 152 BNS, were made out against Zubair as his posts lacked intention, as alleged in the FIR.

He also submitted that no content of his posts was beyond his right to speech and expression and that he was merely asking the police authorities as to what action is contemplated against the maker of the alleged 'derogatory' speech pursuant to the lodging of the FIR.

"My act which is alleged in the FIR, so far as section 152 is concerned, there is no intention of mine. All I asked the police was to take action against Yati Narsinghanand. However, only Section 302 BNS FIR was registered against him...The police commissioner says that FIR was being registered...Ab uske baad hum keh rahe h ki FIR ke baad kya kar rahe hein?" he argued.

Justice Srivastava responded orally by asking whether he would decide the action and whether he was shifting his role from a fact checker to a fact decider. He also said that Zubair's counsel must argue that his posts fall under his right to free speech and expression and the same are protected under the restrictions placed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

Furthermore, Justice Srivastava also asked whether an FIR can be partially quashed if only certain offences are not made out.

"Can we quash the FIR if the offence is not made out under Section 152 BNS, or do we have to look at the initial sections under which the FIR was registered?...Whether the FIR can be quashed partly if certain offences are not made out...The question here is when a particular section is not there in the FIR and is added later...Can it be challenged by way of an amendment in your petition? How can you challenge it?," Justice Srivastava orally raised these queries during the arguments.

Zubair's Counsel strongly argued that Section 152 BNS was not applicable in this case and further contended that none of the offences alleged in the FIR was substantiated against him. He added that Section 152 BNS, punishable with life imprisonment, was added later on to stop his client from getting the protection of the law.

"There is no restraint on me from not circulating it (Yati Narsinghanand's speech) further or commenting on it. The Dasana incident has been registered, and an investigation is underway. No material or no person is saying that he has been asked by the petitioner (Zubair) to take part in the incident...In fact, Yati Narsinghanand had asked to make his speech viral. Therefore, my lord, no offence under Section 152 BNS is made out. Not only Section 152, from the allegations in the FIR, no other offences under any section mentioned in the FIR are made out," he submitted. 

Against this backdrop, the Court asked the Additional Advocate General Manish Goel to justify the invocation of Section 152 BNS against Zubair. In response, Goel argued that an interim order had already included an observation by the bench stating that the offence under Section 196 BNS was prima facie made out against him.

Objecting to this argument, the bench asked him not to rely on the interim order's observations and to address the matter in its finality.

Goel then argued that the Dasna incident, for which the FIR had been filed against Zubair, happened due to his tweets. He claimed that Yati Never intended for a truncated portion of his speech to be circulated, as Zubair did.

Significantly, Goel also submitted that Zubair had admitted before the IO that he had posted those tweets without checking the facts.

"The incident took place on the 4th and did not occur on the 30th or 3rd, only on the 4th. The petitioner made the tweets on the 3rd and continued on the 4th. Repeated tweets, and thereafter, the incident occurred, and the tweets continued till the 5th morning...The rampant disinformation on the internet instigated him (Zubair) to make posts. But in the explanation to IO, he has admitted to not checking the facts", he submitted.

POST LUNCH HEARING DETAILS HERE: Narsinghanand Case | Can A Citizen's Dissatisfaction With State Action Be Considered 'Subversive' Activity? : Asks Allahabad HC On Zubair's Plea