Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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