A court in Uttar Pradesh’s Ayodhya on Tuesday dismissed a criminal complaint lodged against Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore in connection with her social media comments about the April 22 horrific attack in Pahalgam, according to Live Law.
The case was rejected by Ekta Singh, who serves as the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and also as the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ayodhya. The judge ruled that the complaint was “not maintainable” and said the person who filed it lacked the legal standing to do so.
Filed under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita that empower magistrates to take cognisance of alleged offences, the complaint claimed that Rathore had falsely associated Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh with the attack in a way that was intended to incite unrest and gain political mileage.
The complainant accused Rathore of making “false and illegal” comments that had caused unrest across the country and pushed the nation “towards civil war.” These actions, they argued, amounted to sedition and were punishable under cognisable offences. It was also alleged that her comments damaged the reputation of Bharatiya Janata Party leaders.
On Tuesday, the judge cited Section 222(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which governs prosecution for defamation. The section allows a sessions court to take direct cognisance of defamation cases involving the President, Vice-President, Union or State ministers, or public servants, provided a written complaint is filed by a public prosecutor.
However, the judge pointed out a key condition: such a complaint can only be made “with a previous sanction from the Centre or a State government,” as Live Law quoted.
The court clarified that in this case, the complainant had failed to obtain the necessary sanction and therefore was not legally entitled to file the complaint.
A similar argument was applied to the other accusations under Chapter VII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with offences against the state. The judge said these charges too would require prior sanction from the Union or State government.
No documents had been submitted to prove that such permission had been secured, the court noted, ruling that the complainant had no locus standi under those charges either.
Addressing the sedition allegation, the judge remarked that sedition is not explicitly defined in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. She stated that Section 152 is the closest provision under Chapter VII and observed that “the same reasoning on the requirement of a sanction would then be applied.”
Following Rathore’s remarks on the attack, BJP supporters in Uttar Pradesh filed multiple FIRs against her.
