However, the two-judge bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Dr YK Srivastava said Zubair may not be arrested during the investigation
NEW DELHI – Prominent fact-checker and co-founder of Alt News, Mohammed Zubair, suffered a judicial setback on Thursday as the Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR lodged against him by the Ghaziabad Police, accusing him of promoting enmity among religious groups.
The FIR against Zubair stemmed from a complaint by an associate of controversial priest and a staunch Hindutva proponent Yati Narsinghanand.
However, a two-judge bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Dr YK Srivastava said Zubair may not be arrested during the investigation. The court directed the investigation to proceed as per the FIR, a PTI report said.
Zubair was also asked to cooperate with the investigation.
Narsinghanand, who has been charged with hate speech on several earlier occasions, delivered a public speech in which he allegedly made remarks against Prophet Muhammad.
Several FIRs were then registered against Narsinghanand in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Telangana for inciting communal hatred and hurting religious sentiments. His aides claimed that he was taken away by the cops, and this sparked protests at the Dasna Devi Temple in Ghaziabad.
The FIR was lodged on the complaint by one Udita Tyagi, general secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust, claiming that Zubair posted a video clip of an old programme of Narsinghanand on 3 October 2024 with the intent to provoke violence by Muslims against him.
It was further alleged in the complaint that Zubair posted edited clips of the priest on X (formerly Twitter), containing Narsinghanand’s alleged incendiary remarks on Prophet Muhammad to incite radical sentiments against the priest. In his post, he called the alleged speech of Narsinghanand “derogatory,” she complained.
In his writ petition, Zubair moved the high court, requesting it to quash the FIR and provide protection from coercive action. In his plea, Zubair stated that his post does not call for violence against Narsinghanand.
Zubair argued that his actions were limited to alerting the police and seeking action against Narsinghanand under the law, which did not constitute promoting disharmony or ill-will. Zubair also contested the defamation charge, arguing that sharing Narsinghanand’s public videos did not constitute defamation.
Earlier, after hearing counsels for the parties, the court had reserved its judgment on 3 March. – With inputs from Agencies
