SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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