Today, the Supreme Court dealt with a plea seeking to quash an FIR registered over certain social media posts referring to the Prime Minister, the Bihar elections, and Hindu–Muslim politics. The case raised questions about the boundaries of free expression and the invocation of serious penal provisions for online commentary.
The FIR was filed in Lucknow after the petitioner’s posts following the Pahalgam terror attack, which alleged that the Prime Minister and the ruling party were using nationalism and religion to influence voters. The Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR, noting that the remarks were derogatory and linked religion with politics. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court.
Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR invoked disproportionate offences such as mutiny and waging war against the State charges that could not apply to tweets and described the case as an abuse of process. The State opposed the plea, asserting that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that any defence could be raised during trial.
The Bench observed that it was not inclined to interfere at the current stage and clarified that the High Court’s earlier refusal to quash the case did not amount to a finding of guilt. It further noted that the petitioner would have the opportunity to raise objections regarding the charges during the framing stage before the trial court.
The Court ultimately dismissed the plea, refusing to quash the FIR while preserving the petitioner’s right to challenge the charges at an appropriate stage. It also directed that any such objections could be raised during the framing of charges or by seeking discharge before the competent court. The Bench made it clear that it would not comment on the merits of the case.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :