Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court

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