Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme 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