Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“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