The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday rejected the bail plea of a 62-year-old man accused of sharing a provocative social media post containing the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” and calls for jihad.
The court observed that such acts threaten the sovereignty and unity of India and that the judiciary’s tolerance toward such behaviour has contributed to its increasing frequency.
Court Criticizes Judicial Leniency Towards Anti-National Acts
Justice Siddharth, while delivering the order, remarked, “Commission of such offences is becoming a routine affair in this country because the courts are liberal and tolerant towards such acts of people with an anti-national bent of mind.” The bench held that the applicant’s actions did not merit protection under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to personal liberty.
The judge further noted, “Clearly, the act of the applicant is disrespectful to the Constitution and its ideals. His act amounts to challenging the sovereignty of India and adversely affecting the unity and integrity of the country by sharing anti-social and anti-Indian posts.”
Nature Of The Allegation
According to the FIR lodged at Chhatari Police Station in Bulandshahr district, the accused—Ansar Ahmad Siddique—allegedly shared a Facebook post on May 3, 2025, urging his community to support Pakistani nationals and propagate jihad. The content of the post reportedly hurt national sentiments and posed a threat to India’s sovereignty and integrity.
The case has been registered under Sections 197 and 152 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deal with acts undermining national integration and endangering the nation’s sovereignty, respectively.
Defence Argues Age and Health; State Opposes Bail
During the hearing, the applicant’s counsel argued that Siddique, being a 62-year-old senior citizen undergoing medical treatment, merely shared a video without malicious intent. The defence pleaded for leniency based on his age and health condition.
However, the state’s counsel strongly objected to the bail plea, asserting that the video supported terrorist acts on religious grounds and was posted shortly after the Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 people. The state contended that the accused’s actions were against national interest and demonstrated sympathy towards terrorism.
Constitution Must Be Respected by Every Citizen, Says Court
In its June 26 order, the court underscored the duties enshrined in the Constitution, especially under Article 51-A. It noted that every citizen must “abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national flag and the national anthem,” and that it is their duty to “uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.”
While rejecting bail, the court ordered that the trial against Siddique be concluded “as expeditiously as possible.”
This case reflects a growing judicial intolerance towards acts deemed anti-national and underscores the judiciary’s intent to deter such behaviour through stricter scrutiny and legal consequences.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
