In a challenge against the Ghaziabad Police’s FIR filed against Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair over his alleged X post on Yati Narsinghanand’s ‘derogatory’ speech, Zubair’s counsel argued before the Allahabad High Court today that the posts were part of his professional duty as a fact-checker. The defense further asserted that these posts do not constitute an offense under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or the Indian Penal Code.
Senior Advocate Dilip Kumar, representing Mohammed Zubair, argued before a bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava that his client was exercising his freedom of speech by commenting on the alleged controversial speech of Yati Narsinghanand and highlighting his conduct. Kumar emphasized that not only Zubair, but also numerous news articles and social media accounts had addressed the same issue.
Kumar also pointed out that despite Yati Narsinghanand facing 24 criminal cases, police authorities had not initiated prosecution against him. He further noted that the FIRs filed against Narsinghanand were based on weak charges, a point Zubair had highlighted in his tweets while calling for stricter action against him.
For those unfamiliar, Mohammed Zubair is facing an FIR filed by the Ghaziabad Police in October 2024, accusing him of promoting religious enmity after a complaint was lodged by an associate of controversial priest Yati Narsinghanand. Zubair has approached the Allahabad High Court to challenge the FIR, which was later amended to include Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) related to acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
He also argued that the content of his posts fell within his right to freedom of speech and expression. Zubair’s counsel emphasized that he was simply inquiring what action the police authorities intended to take against the maker of the alleged ‘derogatory’ speech following the lodging of the FIR.
Justice Srivastava orally remarked whether Zubair was taking on the role of deciding the action himself, questioning if he was shifting from a fact-checker to a fact-decider. The judge further noted that Zubair’s counsel must argue that his posts fall within his right to freedom of speech and expression, while also addressing how they are protected under the limitations specified in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
Zubair’s counsel strongly argued that Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was not applicable in this case, asserting that none of the offenses alleged in the FIR had been substantiated against him. He further contended that the inclusion of Section 152 BNS, which carries a penalty of life imprisonment, was added later in an attempt to prevent his client from seeking legal protection.
In light of these arguments, the Court asked Additional Advocate General Manish Goel to justify the invocation of Section 152 BNS against Zubair. In response, Goel argued that an interim order had already been issued, which included a bench observation stating that the offense under Section 196 BNS was prima facie applicable to Zubair.
