Allahabad High Court Grants Interim Relief to Alt News Co-founder Mohammed Zubair

The Allahabad High Court has recently granted interim relief to Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, staying his arrest until January 6 in connection with an FIR accusing him of promoting enmity between religious groups.

The court also barred Zubair from traveling abroad and directed him to surrender his passport to the Commissioner of Police in Ghaziabad.

The FIR, filed by the Ghaziabad police last month, stemmed from a complaint by Udita Tyagi, general secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust. Tyagi alleged that Zubair shared an edited video of a speech by the controversial priest Yati Narsinghanand on October 3.

According to Tyagi, the clip was intended to provoke violence by Muslims against Narsinghanand by showcasing his remarks about Prophet Muhammad.

The FIR invoked several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:

– Section 196: Promoting enmity between different religious groups,
– Section 228: Fabricating false evidence,
– Section 299: Deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings,
– Section 356(3): Defamation, and
– Section 351(2): Criminal intimidation.

A bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Nalin Kumar Srivastava noted, “From the reading of the FIR, one could tentatively make out the offense under Section 196 to a large extent. However, whether the petitioner’s actions amount to incitement of secession or separatist activities requires further examination.”

The court granted the state three weeks to submit a detailed counter affidavit, stating, “The matter thus requires consideration.”

Referring to Zubair’s criminal history and a Supreme Court order granting him bail in similar cases in 2022, the bench ruled that he should not be arrested until the next hearing. However, Zubair must cooperate with the investigation and is prohibited from leaving the country.

Zubair had approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR and protection from coercive action. In his petition, he argued that his post was intended to alert authorities to Narsinghanand’s inflammatory remarks and request appropriate action, not to incite violence or disharmony.

He also contested the inclusion of defamation charges, stating that sharing publicly available videos of Narsinghanand could not constitute defamation. “Seeking legal action against someone based on their own public statements cannot amount to promoting enmity or defamation,” Zubair argued.

The case highlights the ongoing debate over free speech and accountability in the digital age, with the next hearing scheduled for January.

Read More: Advocate Seeks FIR Against YouTubers In Abhinav Arora Trolling Case