The Uttarakhand High Court has rejected a petition seeking relief from arrest and the quashing of an FIR against Madan Mohan Joshi, who is accused of inciting a mob lynching through a Facebook Live broadcast. The court’s decision was made by a division bench led by Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, which expressed serious concern over Joshi’s live posts alleging cow slaughter and calling for a “Kranti,” or revolt. The petition had sought protection from arrest, but the court refused to grant any such relief, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and endorsing the need for a full investigation.
The case stems from a mob incident in Ramnagar, in Nainital district. According to the petition filed by Noor Jahan, the wife of Nasir, a driver who was attacked, a mob intercepted Nasir’s vehicle on suspicion of transporting beef. Joshi is alleged to have used his social media platform to spread inflammatory messages, falsely claiming the vehicle carried cow meat, and thereby provoking the crowd to violence. The mob reportedly dragged Nasir from his vehicle and assaulted him with stones, blows, and kicks. The incident was allegedly live-streamed, amplifying its impact and reach.
In her petition, Noor Jahan described the event as a striking example of “complete lawlessness” and “cow vigilantism,” arguing that Joshi’s livestream instigated the mob and marked a blatant disregard for the Supreme Court’s guidelines against mob lynching. She referenced the Supreme Court’s Tehseen S. Poonawalla judgment, which mandates preventative and remedial measures against mob violence, including fast-track investigations, the appointment of designated police officers, and immediate medical assistance for victims.
On receiving these allegations, the High Court directed the investigating officer to file a detailed “action taken” report by a specific deadline. It also ordered the removal of any inflammatory social media content related to the incident. By demanding the deletion of such posts, the court signaled its concern over the role of digital platforms in fueling communal violence and its commitment to curbing incitement online.
The court’s refusal to shield Joshi from arrest reflects its unwillingness to let serious accusations—even against politically connected individuals—be minimized or ignored. It underlined the importance of holding individuals accountable when they are alleged to have used social media communications to stir up violence. The bench’s strong words suggest a clear message: the rule of law must not be undermined by provocative speech, especially when it has the potential to trigger mob action.
Noor Jahan’s petition also sought additional relief: she demanded that the case be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), citing concerns about impartiality given Joshi’s political profile. She asked for protection for herself and her family, compensation for her injured husband, and strict application of Supreme Court-mandated anti-lynching guidelines. The High Court’s orders—requiring the police to act promptly, remove hateful content, and report back—demonstrate its recognition of the seriousness of these demands.
Overall, the Court’s intervention underscores its role as a guardian of constitutional order and civil liberties. It has taken a firm stand on online incitement of violence, especially when it is politically charged and directed against vulnerable individuals. By denying protection to Joshi and pushing for accountability through police action, the court reaffirmed that social media cannot be a safe harbor for those whose speech may foment communal unrest.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.