MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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