Allahabad High Court questions Mohammed Zubair's use of social media over hate speech post
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court, during a hearing on Tuesday, raised questions about Alt-News co-founder Mohammed Zubair’s decision to post about hate speech on social media instead of filing a complaint or seeking legal intervention. The case pertains to an FIR lodged against Zubair by the Ghaziabad Police, accusing him of promoting enmity among religious groups through a post on X (formerly Twitter).
Zubair’s post highlighted a hate speech made by controversial figure Yati Narsinghanand. A division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra orally remarked on Zubair’s actions, suggesting that he was trying to create social unrest by sharing the content on social media.
Addressing Zubair’s actions, Justice Varma asked, “If this person (referring to Yati Narsinghanand) is acting funny, then instead of going to the police, will you act more funny? Have you lodged an FIR against him? I will look at your conduct. If you don’t like his (Yati’s) speech or face, you should file an FIR against him.”
The court emphasized that social media should not be used to create social disharmony, with Justice Varma stating, “Your rights end where my nose begins. Whatever he (Yati) says, you cannot go to social media…Who denies that Twitter cannot be used, but you cannot use it to instigate unrest. Glancing at the tweet shows that you are trying to create unrest.”
Zubair, a prominent fact-checker, defended his post, asserting that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech by highlighting Narsinghanand’s conduct and hate speech. Represented by Senior Counsel, Zubair argued that his post was not isolated, as various news outlets and social media users had also addressed the issue.
The Senior Counsel added, “Zubair did not say anything different from others who reported on the matter. His post was merely a reference to the hate speech and not an attempt to create unrest.”
During the hearing, Zubair’s counsel pointed to a 2022 Supreme Court observation, which stated that journalists should not be restricted from expressing themselves on social media. The counsel recalled a statement by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who, while granting interim bail to Zubair in a similar case, said: “It is like telling a lawyer that you should not argue. How can we tell a journalist that he will not write or utter a word?”
Justice Varma, however, reiterated that social media posts must be cautious and responsible, especially in sensitive matters that could affect societal harmony.
The FIR against Zubair was lodged last month by the Ghaziabad Police following a complaint from an associate of Yati Narsinghanand. The complaint accused Zubair of promoting enmity between religious groups through his social media post.
The matter is now scheduled for its next hearing on Friday, December 20.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bill making CM chancellor of RDPR varsity replacing Guv passed in Council by one vote
Belagavi (Karnataka), Dec 18: The bill that proposes to replace the Karnataka Governor as chancellor of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (RDPR) University with the Chief Minister, was passed in the Karnataka Legislative Council on Wednesday, by one vote.
Having passed by both houses of the legislature, the bill will now have to go before the Governor for his assent to become a law.
Leader of Opposition in the council, Chalavadi Narayanaswamy opposed the bill and demanded for a division of votes during the voting on the bill. Hence, Council Chairman Basavaraj Horatti arranged for row wise headcount of members both in favour of and against the bill.
The division of votes showed 26 votes in favor of the bill, and 25 against it.
The Karnataka State Rural Development and Panchayat Raj University (Amendment) Bill, 2024 passed by the Assembly on Tuesday, seeks to amend the 2016 Act to make provisions for the Chief Minister to be the Chancellor, and for appointment of the vice chancellor by the chancellor from the panel of three persons suggested by search committee.
The Opposition BJP-JD(S) legislators walked out of the Assembly on Tuesday after clashing with the Congress, during the passage of the Bill.
Several opposition members questioned the intention of the government in replacing the Governor as the Chancellor of the university and insisted that the field of education should not be politicised.
JD(S) MLC T A Sharavana said the move seems to be out of hate towards the Governor, and suggested that there should always be a cordial relationship between the government and the Raj Bhavan.
"What the government is going to achieve by keeping the Governor away. CM is always busy politically and administratively. Can he give enough time towards the affairs of the University?" he asked.
BJP MLC C T Ravi questioned whether the Governor was not "cooperative" towards the University's functioning? "What is the intention behind bringing this amendment that was not there when the actual bill was brought a few years ago? Why is the constitutional authority being removed from the Chancellor's post?"
Congress MLC Ivan D'Souza, while defending the bill, said, "In what way the Governor can help the university? If the CM is the chancellor, he can organise funds for the development of the university. Nowhere law stipulates that only the Governor should be the chancellor. States like Gujarat have withdrawn the Governor from Chancellorship of various universities in their state."
Replying to the discussion, RDPR Minister Priyank Kharge said, the bill was not brought with any political malintention or out of any political hatred or to have any confrontation with the Governor.
The bill has been brought in to make the university function more efficiently, to make it coordinate with the government better and, to provide better quality of education and training for youths, he added.
"I have nowhere said that the Governor was not cooperating. As we felt that this is one of the better ways to manage the university, we have brought these amendments. Show me any guidelines including the UGC guidelines which says that only the Governor should be the Chancellor. No such guideline anywhere," Kharge said, pointing out that in various states like Gujarat and Arunachal Pradesh, the Governor has no role in several Universities.
