NEW DELHI, Jan 7 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim protection from arrest to folk singer Neha Singh Rathore in connection with an FIR accusing her of making objectionable social media posts in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar issued notice on Rathore’s plea challenging the Allahabad High Court order refusing anticipatory bail and directed that no coercive steps be taken against her, provided she cooperates with the ongoing investigation.
The court imposed conditions, directing Rathore to appear before the Investigating Officer whenever summoned, beginning January 19, and cautioned that any failure to cooperate or non-appearance would be viewed seriously.
During the hearing, the state alleged that Rathore had not cooperated with the investigation. Her counsel, however, disputed the claim, stating that she had already appeared before the Investigating Officer on January 3.
The FIR alleges that after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir where 26 tourists were killed, Rathore posted “anti-India statements” on her X (formerly Twitter) account.
The prosecution claimed that her posts, made at a sensitive time when the government had imposed restrictions and was formulating its response, were intended to adversely affect national integrity and incite disharmony on religious and caste lines.
The FIR, registered on April 27, 2025, at Hazratganj Police Station, Lucknow, invokes multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 196, 197, 302, 152 and 353, along with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
During the course of the investigation, Sections 152 and 159 BNS were subsequently added.
The prosecution cited several of Rathore’s social media posts criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party, alleging that the statements were circulated widely, including outside India, and had the potential to harm India’s sovereignty, security and communal harmony.
Appearing for Rathore, Senior Counsel Kamal Kishore Sharma contended that the posts amounted to political criticism protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
He argued that Rathore neither incited violence nor spread false information and relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (2025) to submit that critical expression is constitutionally protected speech.
The state government, represented by Government Advocate V.K. Singh, opposed the plea, contending that the timing and tenor of the posts went beyond legitimate dissent.
Relying on precedents including Ramji Lal Modi (1957), Kedar Nath Singh (1962) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the state argued that a speech undermining sovereignty or disturbing communal harmony is not entitled to constitutional protection.
While the court granted interim protection from arrest, it noted that the right to free speech is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, sovereignty and national security.
The Bench clarified that the investigation must proceed fairly and in accordance with law, and that the interim relief would remain operative subject to Rathore’s continued cooperation.
The matter will be taken up for further hearing after responses are filed. (UNI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
