'Free Speech is Not Absolute': Allahabad HC Refuses to Quash FIR Against Singer Neha Singh Rathore

The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi stated that while Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to free speech, the right is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It observed that the tweets posted by Rathore, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by the police officers.

The FIR, lodged on April 27, 2025, at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow, accused Rathore of offences under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 including Sections 196, 197, 302, 152, and 353 as well as Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008. During the investigation, Sections 152 and 159 BNS were later added.

Investigators cited several of Rathore’s tweets that criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP, alleging the party was exploiting terror incidents to push for war with Pakistan and divert attention from domestic issues. One tweet suggested that the ruling party wanted to sacrifice soldiers for political gain, while another cast doubt on media reports of victims refusing to recite religious verses before being killed. The prosecution argued that these statements, circulated widely including in Pakistan, risked harming India’s sovereignty and communal harmony.

Rathore, represented by senior counsel Kamal Kishore Sharma, argued that her posts amounted to political criticism protected under free speech. The counsel maintained that none of the alleged offences were attracted, stressing that Rathore neither incited violence nor spread false information. Her counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imran Pratapgarhi vs State of Gujarat (2025), which had upheld poetry critical of government policies as protected speech under Article 19(1)(a). Rathore also assured the court of her willingness to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

The state government, represented by Government Advocate V.K. Singh, countered that the timing and tenor of Rathore’s tweets made them far more serious than mere political dissent. Citing precedents including Ramji Lal Modi (1957), Kedar Nath Singh (1962) and Bhajan Lal (1992), Singh argued that speech that undermines sovereignty, disrupts communal harmony or disrespects constitutional authorities cannot claim absolute protection. He also highlighted that similar petitions involving derogatory comments against leaders had earlier been dismissed.

Agreeing with the state, the court held that the allegations in the FIR and the material in the case diary clearly disclosed cognizable offences, thereby justifying investigation. It found Rathore’s reliance on Imran Pratapgarhi misplaced, noting that the poetry in that case had not invoked religion or named individuals, unlike Rathore’s posts, which referred directly to the Prime Minister and Home Minister in a derogatory manner.

The court stressed that free speech loses protection when it is timed and worded in a manner that risks inciting communal tensions or undermining national unity. “The fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute,” the bench observed, “and restrictions may be imposed to prevent speech that incites violence, riots or public disorder".

Dismissing the writ petition as misconceived, the court refused to quash the FIR or restrain the police from proceeding with the case. However, it directed that the investigation be conducted fairly, independently, and strictly in accordance with law. Rathore has been asked to appear before the investigating officer on September 26 at 11 a.m. and cooperate until the filing of the police report.

Case Title: Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari vs. State Of U.P. and 2 others

Order Date: September 19, 2025

Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi