Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras 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