Industrial Units In MIDC Areas Exempt From Municipal Property Tax Only As Long As MIDC Provides Amenities: Supreme Court MIDC Service Charges Are Fees For Services, Not Taxes; Industrial Units Must Pay Municipal Property Tax: Supreme Court Public Servants Have No Vested Right To Be Considered For Promotion Under Repealed Rules: Supreme Court IBC | Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Renege From Approved Plan By Citing Pending Litigations Or Letter Of Intent Conditions: Supreme Court Payment Of 93% Sale Consideration Demonstrates Readiness & Willingness For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Delay In Issuing Legal Notice No Ground To Deny Specific Performance If Suit Filed Within Limitation: Supreme Court Brandishing Pistol At Children During Abduction Inherently Constitutes Threat To Cause Death Or Hurt: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 364A IPC Lack Of CDR Records For 2003-Era Kidnapping Not Fatal To Prosecution If Oral Evidence Of Ransom Is Cogent: Supreme Court Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage On Ground Of Irretrievable Breakdown Under Article 142 Despite Wife's Opposition To Decree Failure To Conduct TIP For Unknown Accused Diminishes Evidentiary Value Of Dock Identification: Supreme Court Acquits Rape-Murder Convicts On Death Row Padded Evidence Created By Investigating Agency To Bolster Prosecution Case Fatal To Conviction In Circumstantial Evidence Cases: Supreme Court CCI Has No Inherent Power To Keep Combination Approval In Abeyance Or Order Re-Notification Without Express Statutory Authority: Supreme Court CCI Cannot Reopen Concluded Merger Approvals After One Year; Characterization Dispute In Filing Is Not 'Non-Disclosure': Supreme Court Sets Aside Orders Against Amazon Stamping Defects Are Curable, Arbitrators Empowered To Decide Such Objections Under Section 16 A&C Act: Supreme Court Rejection Of Section 16 Objection By Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226/227; Aggrieved Party Must Wait For Final Award: Supreme Court Police Parading Accused Or Orchestrating Social Media Condemnation Is Extra-Legal Punishment, Violates Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Inclusion Of Hash Value In Electronic Record Certificates Is Essential For Data Integrity; Not Arbitrary: Supreme Court Judiciary Not Above Criticism; Portraying Imaginary Corrupt Court In Films Doesn't Scandalize Real Courts: Madras High Court

“In the name of freedom of expression, the laxman rekha should not be crossed.” : HP High Court Dismisses Bail Application for make derogatory remarks on Bhagwaan Bhole Shankar and Shivling.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 24 July 2023, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Virender Singh, has dismissed the bail application of Dr. Nadeem Akhtar in connection with alleged derogatory comments posted on Facebook against religious figures. The judgment, delivered on 24th July, 2023, emphasized the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the need to respect the religious sentiments of others.

Justice Virender Singh stated in the judgment, “While residing in the society, it is the duty of every person to give due respect to the religious belief of other members of the society. In the name of freedom of expression, the laxman rekha should not be crossed.”

The case stemmed from an FIR registered under Sections 295-A, 153A, and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, following complaints by local authorities and religious organizations about offensive Facebook posts allegedly made by Dr. Nadeem Akhtar, a qualified ophthalmologist running a private clinic in Mehatpur, Himachal Pradesh.

The police presented digital evidence indicating Dr. Akhtar’s involvement in the comments. Demonstrations and law and order concerns arose in the area due to the alleged comments, and the police expressed apprehensions about potential communal disharmony if bail were granted.

Justice Singh highlighted the applicant’s status in society and the responsibility that accompanies it. “The applicant is not a layman, but an educated person, who is well aware of the effect of his alleged post and comments. He ought to have exercised more caution before allegedly making the comments or putting posts on his Facebook account,” the judgment read.

The Court dismissed the bail application, stating, “Allowing the bail application in this case will also give a wrong signal to the society and encourage other persons to make such type of comments, allegedly causing resentment in the minds of followers of other religions, which is also not good for the secular fabric of the country.”

The judgment reiterated that while deciding the question of bail, courts must balance individual liberty with the larger interest of society. “Freedom of expression must be exercised responsibly and should not infringe upon the religious beliefs and sentiments of others,” Justice Singh emphasized.

Date of Decision: 24th July, 2023.

Dr. Nadeem Akhtar vs State of Himachal Pradesh          

Latest Legal News