Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Freedom Of Speech Does Not Allow Abuse Against The PM: Allahabad HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash a first information report (FIR) filed against a man accused of posting abusive and derogatory comments on Facebook about, among others, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah [Mumtaz Mansoori v. State of UP & 2 others].

A bench composed of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rajendra Kumar-IV ruled that insulting any citizen, and especially the Prime Minister, is not protected by the First Amendment.

"Although the constitution of this country recognises the right to free speech for every citizen, this right does not extend to hurling insults or making derogatory remarks against any citizen, much less the Prime Minister or other Ministers of the Government of India," the court stated.

According to the FIR, petitioner-accused Mumtaz Mansoori published a "highly offensive" Facebook post in which he referred to the Prime Minister, Home Minister, and other ministers as "dogs."

The Uttar Pradesh Police charged him under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

Then, he petitioned the High Court to dismiss the case.

The court ruled that the FIR revealed a punishable offence and dismissed the defendant's defense.

"The First Information Report reveals the commission of a criminal offence. We find no reason to intervene in the present petition for a writ filed with a request to quash the First Information Report "the instruction stated.

Advocates Aqeel Ahmad and Mohd Saifh represented the petitioner, while Advocate Sri Syed Ali Murtaza represented the state.

D.D:15-07-2022

Mumtaz Mansoori Versus State of UP & 2 ors

Latest Legal News