Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala 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