Allahabad High Court rejects plea to quash FIR against a man for ‘coward-PM Modi’ comments on social media post India-Pakistan ceasefire. Read about the legal charges and court’s verdict.

Overview of the Allahabad HC Verdict on FIR Against Ajeet Yadav

On 7 June 2025, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea seeking relief from an FIR filed against a 24-year-old man, Ajeet Yadav, for allegedly posting derogatory comments about Prime Minister Narendra Modi on social media. These comments followed the recent India-Pakistan ceasefire agreement after intense military conflict in early May 2025.

Details of the FIR and Court’s Reasoning

The FIR against Ajeet Yadav includes serious charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, such as:

• Section 352: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace

• Section 152: Acts endangering sovereignty and unity of India

• Section 196(1): Promoting enmity between different groups

• Section 353(2): Statements conducing to public mischief

Yadav allegedly used offensive terms like “coward” and “hijra” to describe PM Modi, criticizing the Prime Minister’s decision to refrain from war during the India-Pakistan standoff. One of the comments reportedly read, “Name Narendra, work surrender,” mocking the PM’s actions.

Allahabad HC’s Stand on Freedom of Speech vs Respect for Constitutional Authorities

A bench led by Justice JJ Munir and Justice Anil Kumar-X rejected arguments that the posts were made in the heat of the moment. The court emphasized that:

“Emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that Constitutional Authorities of India are dragged into disrepute by employment of disrespectful words.”

The court also noted that this case was unsuitable for quashing the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the relief application was dismissed.

What This Verdict Means for Social Media Users in India

This ruling highlights the boundaries of freedom of speech on social media, especially when it comes to public figures and constitutional authorities. It serves as a reminder that disrespectful or scurrilous language targeting government officials may invite legal consequences, even in emotionally charged situations like national security conflicts.