Case Summary and Outcome

The Allahabad High Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and may be restricted when its exercise threatens national security, public order, or communal harmony. The case arose after Neha Singh Rathore, a singer and social activist, posted several tweets in April 2025 criticizing the Prime Minister and the ruling party for allegedly exploiting a terrorist attack in Kashmir for political gain. Following the viral posts, the police registered an FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2008, alleging that her statements incited hatred and endangered India’s sovereignty. The Court examined whether her tweets were protected speech or punishable expressions, ultimately holding that their “timing and content were so crucial and worth considering” since they could disturb public peace. The Court concluded that her remarks, being “derogatory and disrespectful” toward constitutional authorities, fell outside constitutional protection. 

Facts

On April 22, 2025, a terrorist attack carried out by a Pakistan-based terrorist group in the Kashmir Valley claimed the lives of approximately 26 Indian and non-Indian tourists. In response, the Government of India launched Operation Sindoor, a retaliatory military action targeting specific militant elements in the Pakistan region. The terrorist attack and the said operation initiated a lot of debate.

In the days following the attack, the petitioner, Neha Singh Rathore, a singer and social activist known for her political and social commentary, posted a series of tweets on her social media account criticizing the Government of India and its leadership. In her posts dated April 22–24, 2025, she made comments suggesting that the ruling party was exploiting the tragedy for electoral gain in Bihar and accused the Prime Minister and his party of attempting to provoke war and communal polarization for political purposes. Some of her tweets include:

There was a terrorist attack in Kashmir, and immediately afterward, Prime Minister Modi held a rally in Bihar. From the stage in Bihar itself, he threatened Pakistan — and the crowd burst into loud applause. Those who understand Modi’s politics and the condition of Bihar know very well why he had to come to Bihar to threaten Pakistan. He had to come to Bihar so that votes could be gathered from the people in the name of nationalism, and the real issues of the people of Bihar could once again be sidelined. Now, Modi and his associates cannot win votes based on their work — because no work has actually been done, and the corruption has been so rampant that if an honest election were held, many would lose their deposits. In the Bihar elections, they can get votes either in the name of Hindu–Muslim division or in the name of India–Pakistan hostility. There is no third option — and they will definitely choose one of those two paths.

When a person was shot dead for refusing to recite the Kalma (Islamic creed), who told this story to the media? Among the dead was a man named Saeed Hussain Shah — did Saeed also refuse to recite the Kalma? Use your mind — don’t think what the BJP wants you to think.

The tweets received a lot of criticism and raised debates on X (formerly, Twitter). On April 27, 2025,  an FIR was lodged at Hazratganj Police Station, Lucknow, by the State authorities, alleging that  Rathore’s tweets contained statements prejudicial to the sovereignty, integrity, and security of India, incited enmity between communities, and had the potential to disturb public order. 

Apprehending arrest and alleging violation of her constitutional rights, Rathore filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) seeking (i) quashing of the FIR dated April 27, 2025, and (ii) a direction restraining the police from arresting or harassing her during the investigation.

Decision Overview

Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan delivered the decision for the Division Bench, which also comprised Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). The primary issue before the Court was whether the FIR registered against Rathore could be quashed on the ground that her social media posts were protected expressions under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. 

Rathore contended that the FIR was an abuse of the legal process and violative of her fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Rathore contended that she is a singer, poet, and social activist known for her artistic and political expressions, and her tweets were expressions of criticism against the ruling government, which fall within the legitimate domain of dissent in a democracy. Further, she argued that none of the tweets contained language that could reasonably be construed as incitement to violence, promotion of enmity between groups, or actions prejudicial to national integrity.  Rathor also contended that she merely criticized the Prime Minister’s political conduct and electoral strategy in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, an act protected under free speech jurisprudence. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, where the Court upheld the right of a poet to use strong language in political critique as a legitimate exercise of Article 19(1)(a). Rathor’s tweets, it was argued, did not name or target any community and thus could not be said to disturb “harmony among the various groups of persons belonging to different caste and religion.” It was also urged that the mere virality of a social media post, even if controversial, could not constitute an offence under the BNS or IT Act. 

On the other hand, the State of Uttar Pradesh contended that Rathor’s tweets, posted immediately after the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, were deliberately provocative and intended to undermine the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the country, while also attempting to create religious and political polarization. The State emphasized that the timing and content of the tweets, particularly the statements alleging that the Prime Minister used the tragedy for electoral gain and that the ruling party sought to push the country into war, were “worth noticing” given the fragile security situation. The prosecution submitted that Rathor’s posts had been widely circulated internationally, including in Pakistan, where they were being used to support anti-India propaganda, thereby aggravating the seriousness of the offence. The State argued that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) was not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) in the interests of public order, morality, and national security. It was therefore urged that Rathore’s speech, being “derogatory and disrespectful toward the Prime Minister and Home Minister of India”, fell outside the scope of constitutional protection.

The Court began by observing that although freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and must be exercised within the limits prescribed by Article 19(2). The Bench reiterated that restrictions could be imposed in the interests of “sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency or morality.” [para. 13] In support, the Court relied upon a series of precedents, including Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, which collectively established that the right to free speech does not protect expressions inciting violence, hatred, or public disorder. The Court clarified that the extent of protection available to speech “would depend on whether such speech and expression would constitute a propagation of ideas or would have any social value.” [para. 20] If the speech failed that test, it would not enjoy constitutional protection.

After examining the FIR, the case diary, and the text of the tweets, the Court found that the allegations made against Rathore prima facie disclosed cognizable offences. The Court noted that Rathore’s tweets, particularly those suggesting that the ruling party sought to provoke war and exploit communal sentiments for electoral gain, were made during a period of heightened national tension following the terrorist attack at Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, in which twenty-six Hindu tourists had been killed. The Court emphasized that the “timings of the tweets of Rathore are so crucial and worth considering” [para. 25] because such remarks, published during a volatile moment, could incite disharmony and disrupt public order. It further observed that the posts contained “derogatory and disrespectful” language toward the Prime Minister and Home Minister of India, which, coupled with their religious and political implications, removed them from the protection of Article 19(1)(a).

The Court rejected Rathore’s reliance on Imran Pratapgarhi, distinguishing that case on facts. It noted that the Supreme Court had protected a poem in Imran Pratapgarhi because it “did not refer to any religion, caste or language and… by no stretch of imagination… promote enmity between different groups,” whereas in the present matter, Rathore’s tweets clearly introduced religious and political angles that risked inflaming public sentiment. [para. 25] The Court relied on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, to reaffirm that the judiciary must not interfere with ongoing investigations unless there is a clear violation of law, observing that “it must be left to the investigating agency to proceed in its own manner.” [para. 18] 

In conclusion, the Bench reaffirmed the constitutional position that freedom of speech in India is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot be invoked to justify expressions that potentially endanger public order, national unity, or the integrity of the State.