Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar

DELIBERATE INSULTS TO RELIGION NOT PROTECTED, CHARGE SHEET TO STAND – ALLH. HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court delivered a judgment regarding a social media case involving the alleged outraging of religious sentiments. The court dismissed an application seeking to quash the charge sheet and emphasized the importance of responsible online speech.

The case revolved around an objectionable message posted on WhatsApp regarding "Maa Durga," which had led to hurt sentiments among the Hindu community. The complainant had filed an FIR, resulting in a charge sheet being filed against the applicant under Sections 295A IPC and Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 2008.

During the proceedings, the applicant claimed innocence and asserted that they had received the message but did not send or forward it. However, the court took note of the evidence, including WhatsApp chats, indicating the applicant's admission of receiving and forwarding the message to other groups.

The court highlighted that Section 295A IPC penalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. It emphasized that not all acts would qualify as an offense and that unintentional or careless insults were not covered. The judgment stressed that freedom of expression on social media comes with responsibilities and does not grant unfettered license for language use.

The ruling recognized social media as a global platform for exchanging thoughts and opinions but emphasized the need for responsible speech. The court underlined that citizens do not have the right to speak without responsibility and that freedom of expression should be exercised while considering its special responsibilities and duties.

The court further noted that the charge sheet was supported by cogent and reliable evidence, as collected during the investigation. Considering the prima facie case made against the applicant, the court affirmed the decision to summon the applicant for trial.

Date :- 16.5.2023

Dr.Shiv Sidharth @ Shiv Kumar Bharti vs State Of U.P And Another     

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/16-May-2023-Dr-Shiv-Vs-State-Allh-HC.pdf"]                                   

Latest Legal News