The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash the FIR filed against Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair for his tweets about Yati Narsinghanand’s controversial speeches. The court stated that although Zubair’s tweets seem to fall within the right to freedom of speech, only a proper investigation can determine whether any offence was committed.
“The Court finds that the ‘test of fire in a crowded theatre’ would not apply in the instant case,”
– observed the Division Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Refuses To Cancel FIR Against Mohammed Zubair, Cites Need For Fair Investigation
Zubair had posted videos and comments on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) highlighting speeches made by priest Yati Narsinghanand. These tweets allegedly triggered unrest near the Dasna Devi Mandir on October 4, 2024. An FIR was lodged by Udita Tyagi, claiming the tweets incited violence and that she received life threats as a result.
The bench noted that Zubair, as a well-known fact-checker, has a considerable following and influence. While the court acknowledged his right to express dissatisfaction with the state’s inaction, it maintained that:
“Whether those expressions encouraged separatist feelings or posed a threat to the sovereignty of the country is for the investigating agency to examine.”
Read also:- Kerala High Court Directs Electricity Board to Publish All Work Contracts Online to Ensure Transparency
Despite this, the court extended interim protection from arrest to Zubair during the investigation and barred him from leaving the country. It emphasized the importance of protecting an individual from wrongful implications under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“A false implication might prejudice the rights guaranteed to an individual… Therefore, both subjective and objective investigation is necessary,”
– the court stated.
The FIR initially included multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and IT Act. Section 152 BNS—related to acts endangering sovereignty and unity—was added later. Zubair’s legal team argued that his posts were aimed at urging legal action against hate speech and did not promote rebellion or separatism.
“Comments expressing disapproval of the government’s actions to seek lawful change do not amount to an offence,”
– Zubair’s counsel pointed out, referring to the Explanation of Section 152 BNS.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply on Plea to Ban Betting Apps and Celebrity Endorsements
The court refrained from interfering further, stating that determining the intent behind the tweets, their impact, and whether they posed a national threat, requires technical and psychological assessment that only investigating agencies can conduct.
While asserting that investigation should continue, the court also reminded that if Zubair is found innocent, the interim protection would prevent injustice. It emphasized reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hema Mishra vs. State of U.P., ensuring Zubair’s rights are safeguarded.
“Provisions of Section 152 BNS are a shield, not a tool to gag voices critical of the State,”
– the court concluded.
Appearances
Senior Advocate Dileep Kumar, assisted by Advocate Tanmay Sadh, appeared for the petitioner.
Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, assisted by Advocate Pankaj Saxena, and Government Advocate AK Sand, appeared for the state.
Advocates Kapil Tyagi and Adhitya Srinivasan appeared for the informant
Case title - Mohammed Zubair vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 186
