'X' Posts On Pahalgam Attack 'Against PM', His Name Used Disrespectfully: Allahabad HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Singer Neha Rathore

A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that the 'X' Posts/tweets posted by Rathore were against the Prime Minister of India and that the PM's name had been used in 'disrespectful manner' in the alleged posts.

The Court further noted that while Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it is subject to reasonable restrictions for public order, decency or morality. It added that Rathore had made the tweets at the 'crucial time' when the unfortunate Pahalgam incident took place on April 22, 2025.

This order comes almost 2.5 months after HC rejected Rathore's plea challenging the FIR in this case over multiple charges, including "endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India".

#JustIn | #AllahabadHighCourt DENIES anticipatory bail to singer Neha Singh Rathore in FIR under multiple charges, including "endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India" over her allegedly 'provocative' social media posts on the #Pahalgam Terror Attack. pic.twitter.com/Mg7tnTplQ9

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) December 5, 2025

Case in brief

The FIR against Rathore alleges that following the terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, where 26 tourists were killed by a Pakistan-backed terrorist organization, she published "anti-India statements" on her X (formerly Twitter) handle.

The prosecution argued that at a time when the government was preparing to take revenge against Pakistan and had imposed strict restrictions, Rathore was continuously making several objectionable posts to "adversely affect the national integrity, to incite people to commit crimes against each other on the basis of religion and caste".

Senior Advocate Purnendu Chakravarty, appearing for Rathore, argued that the FIR was based merely on a video clip and tweets which constituted a "dissenting voice against the Government". He contended that voicing dissent does not equate to committing an offence against the nation or sedition.

In this regard, he relied upon SC's judgment in the case of Imaran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat and another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362 and argued that without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, Government Advocate VK Singh submitted that the HC may not appreciate the facts and legal aspects of the present case in view of the order of the Supreme Court in her case (passed in October 2025), wherein Rathore had been asked to raise all these issues at the time of framing of the charge

He asserted that this direction was binding upon the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.

The prosecution further alleged that even after rejection of her plea by the Top Court, she is "avoiding the police investigation" despite earlier directions to cooperate and thus, she is not entitled to any relief.

On the merits of the allegations, he also asserted that she displayed "malice intention against the Bharatiya Janta Party and its leader like Prime Minister" and attempted to "create hatred between the two communities".

The State also highlighted that her tweets were widely circulated in the world especially in Pakistan, where they were used to support narratives against India.

HC's order

In its detailed 14-page order, the High Court scrutinized the content of the alleged tweets noting that they suggested that the Prime Minister visited Bihar to garner votes in the name of nationalism because "work has not been done".

Justice Singh observed that the applicant made these tweets at a "crucial time" when the unfortunate incident took place and the "security and integrity of the country was at threat". Further, he noted that PM's name had been used disrespectfully and the tweets were primarily against the PM.

Importantly, at the outset, the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the plea, arguing that Rathore should have first approached the Sessions Court as per the Full Bench judgment of the HC in Ankit Bharti vs. State of UP.

However, the High Court rejected this objection and pointed out to the "special circumstances" clause in the Ankit Bharti judgment.

The Court thus allowed Rathore to approach the High Court directly, noting that she is a resident of Bihar and not Lucknow and thus faced a threat of arrest outside the local jurisdiction.

On the merits, however, the High Court found its hands tied by a previous order of the Supreme Court. It noted that Supreme Court observation that Rathore can "raise all these issues at the stage of framing of the charge", was binding upon it as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the High Court stated it could not express an opinion on whether the charges against Rathore were made out at this stage.

The Court also found that Rathore is not cooperating in the investigation and that more than seven months had passed since the lodging of the FIR.

Thus, her anticipatory bail pleas was dismissed that with a liberty to seek legal remedy as may be available under law.