UP Court Dismisses Complaint Against Singer Neha Singh Rathore Over Social Media Posts On Pahalgam Terror Attack

A Court in Uttar Pradesh's Ayodhya District on Tuesday dismissed a criminal complaint filed against Folk singer Neha Singh Rathore over her alleged 'seditious' posts on social media concerning the recent Pahalgam terror attack.

Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.)/ACJM. Ayodhya, Ekta Singh said that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has no locus to file the same.

The court was essentially dealing with the complaint moved under Section 210 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by one Shivendra Singh, through Advocate Martand Pratap Singh, claiming that Rathore had 'falsely' linked Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh to the recent Pahalgam terror attack to incite public unrest and gain electoral advantage.

The complaint further alleged that Rathore's false and illegal remarks have created nationwide unrest, which has pushed the country towards a civil war and that her acts amount to sedition and constitute a cognizable offence.

It added that Rathore's 'indecent' and 'derogatory' remarks have maligned the image of ruling BJP leaders and that she is falsely propagating that the BJP is responsible for most terrorist attacks in the country.

At the outset, the court noted that the primary allegation against Rathore is that she, by making indecent and inappropriate remarks against PM Modi, the Home Minister, the Defence Minister, and all leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party, defamed them and tarnished their image.

The Court then referred to Section 222 (2) [prosecution for defamation] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which provides that if Defamation is alleged to have been committed against the President, Vice-President, a Governor, Union or State Minister, or any public servant in relation to their official conduct, the Sessions Court may directly take cognizance on a written complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor.

Further, the Court also took into account the mandate of subsection (4) to Section 222 BNSS, which provides that no complaint shall be made by the Public Prosecutor under subsection (2) except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.

Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that since Rathore has been alleged to have harmed the reputation of the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Defence Minister, and other BJP leaders, who are either Union or State Ministers, any defamation complaint in respect of them must be filed by a Public Prosecutor with the prior sanction of the Central or State Government, which wasn't the case in the instant complaint.

Thus, the Court concluded that the instant complaint could not have been filed by the complainant without obtaining the appropriate sanction.

Further, regarding the allegation against Rathore of committing offences falling under Chapter VII of the BNS, the court noted that as per Section 217 BNSS, no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter VII of BNS [Of Offences Against The State] without the prior sanction of the Central or State Government.

Thus, the Court concluded that since the complainant has not submitted any document on record to show that such prior sanction was obtained before filing the complaint, he does not have the right to file a complaint regarding the said offence.

Regarding the offence of Sedition alleged against Rathore, the Court noted that under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the offence of sedition has not been defined and the closest section to it would be Section 152, which also comes under chapter VII, hence, the same would also require a rpevsious sanction, which has not been taken.

Against this backdrop, the court opined that the complaint does not have the locus to file the complaint. Hence, the same was dismissed for being non-maintanable.