The Allahabad High Court launched a scathing critique of Alt-News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, questioning his intent and actions regarding his social media posts about controversial pandit Yati Narsinghanand. The court accused Zubair of using X as a platform to incite social disharmony rather than seeking legal remedies.
The case stems from an FIR filed against Zubair for allegedly sharing manipulated clips of Narsinghanand’s speech with the intent to provoke violence. A division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra expressed serious concerns about the impact of Zubair’s social media conduct on public peace.
During the hearing, the court’s remarks highlighted a growing unease with the use of social media to address sensitive matters. Justice Varma questioned Zubair’s decision to amplify the pandit’s remarks on X instead of filing a formal complaint or seeking judicial intervention.
“If this person is acting funny, then instead of going to the police, will you act more funny? If you don’t like his speech, you should file an FIR against him,” Justice Varma said. He further added, “You will go to social media and create social disharmony? Glancing at the tweet shows that you are trying to create unrest.”
The court also questioned the broader implications of replacing legal remedies with social media activism. Justice Varma asked, “Is there any law that permits an individual to resort to Twitter instead of approaching the court?”
Zubair’s senior counsel argued that his client’s posts were protected under the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. The defense maintained that Zubair’s intent was to expose and highlight Narsinghanand’s remarks, not to incite unrest. The counsel also pointed out that an FIR against Narsinghanand had been registered three hours before Zubair’s post, and Zubair was unaware of this development.
The court, however, appeared unconvinced, emphasising the potential for social media posts to inflame public sentiment. Justice Varma remarked, “Come to the court then … you will go to social media handles and create social disharmony? Who denies that Twitter cannot be used, but you cannot use it to instigate unrest.”
The Additional Advocate General (AAG) for Uttar Pradesh argued that Zubair’s post distorted Narsinghanand’s remarks and was designed to provoke violence. The AAG asserted that freedom of speech is not absolute and can be restricted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. He claimed that Zubair’s actions demonstrated a clear proximity between his tweet and subsequent lawless actions by the public.
The state’s counsel also informed the court that a lookout notice had been issued against Zubair, stating the seriousness of the charges. The FIR against him includes sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) that address promoting enmity, fabricating false evidence, and inciting religious sentiments.
The FIR, filed by Udita Tyagi, general secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust, accuses Zubair of deliberately posting an edited video clip of Narsinghanand’s speech from October 3 to incite violence. The charges include:
- Section 196: Promoting enmity on religious grounds.
- Section 228: Creating false evidence
- Section 299: Deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
- Section 356(3): Defamation.
- Section 351(2): Criminal intimidation.
- Section 152: Endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity.
According to Tyagi’s complaint, Zubair’s post manipulated the pandit’s remarks about Prophet Muhammad to provoke radical sentiments and escalate tensions at the Dasna Devi Mandi. This is not the first time Zubair has faced legal scrutiny. In 2022, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in multiple FIRs filed by Uttar Pradesh Police over his tweets, rejecting the state’s plea to prohibit Zubair from tweeting.
Justice D Y Chandrachud remarked, “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?” 98The Allahabad High Court has adjourned the matter until December 20, directing the state to submit additional evidence and clarify whether the first informant was aware of Zubair’s tweet. Meanwhile, Zubair’s legal team continues to challenge the FIR, asserting that his post merely alerted authorities to Narsinghanand’s incendiary speech and did not incite violence.
