Supreme Court orders 5-day interim bail for Mohammed Zubair
Zubair will not be released immediately as he is in judicial custody in connection with another case registered in Delhi
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered a five-day interim bail for Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair in the case filed against him in Uttar Pradesh’s Sitapur over a tweet calling Hindu priests “hate mongers”, saying his personal liberty has been deprived.
A bench of justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari asked Zubair not to post any tweet or tamper with any evidence, including electronic, till the matter is heard next on July 12.
Zubair will not be released immediately as he is in judicial custody in connection with another case registered in Delhi. A Delhi court refused him bail last Saturday. The top court made it clear that its order was only in connection with the case in Uttar Pradesh.
Zubair moved the top court against a June 10 Allahabad high court order refusing to quash the criminal case filed against him on June 1 in Sitapur over his “hate monger” tweet. He said he faced a death threat citing a string of tweets, which tagged police authorities and sought his custodial killing.
The order came a day after a Sitapur court denied Zubair bail and handed him over to the Uttar Pradesh Police on a four-day remand.
The bench brushed aside the objections of solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Uttar Pradesh Police, additional solicitor general SV Raju and additional advocate general Garima Parshad to the bail. The three alleged Zubair suppressed vital information to create an “artificial urgency” to seek bail while insisting there was no threat to his life while he is under police protection.
They claimed the objection against him did not pertain to tweets and said he was part of a “larger syndicate” receiving funds from countries inimical to India. This is a matter of probe in the other case of the Delhi Police against him, they added.
The bench said Zubair has been deprived of his liberty. “You cannot say there is no urgency. He [Zubair] went by the possibility of deprivation of his liberty. That has happened as he has been taken into custody. This was the reason we directed an urgent listing of the matter.”
The bench granted him bail until further orders of the regular bench on terms and conditions to be imposed by a Sitapur magistrate. “The petitioner shall not post any tweets and shall not tamper with any evidence, electronic or otherwise in Bengaluru or anywhere else.”
Mehta said there is no quarrel over the court deciding urgent listing of the matter. “We are on the conduct of the petitioner.” He said there was no mention in Zubair’s plea of the orders of the Sitapur court rejecting his bail and granting custody to the Uttar Pradesh Police on July 7. “These are wilful and deliberate suppression of facts. You cannot play with the system like this.”
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Zubair, told the court that his client’s tweet calling Narsinghanand a “hate monger” cannot be said to have created enmity and outraging religious belief. He said the attorney general has granted sanction for contempt of court against Narsinghanand after examining his hate speeches against the Constitution, judges and judiciary.
He said Zubair’s tweet promotes secularism and not enmity between communities. “When I expose this kind of venomous language, I am put in jail for that. Those who make these speeches are released on bail and they come out and speak again while I, who exposed them as a secular tweeter, am in jail,” Gonsalves said.
Mehta told the court that he does not wish to defend Narsinghanand’s hate speeches. “I am not here to defend what this man Yati Narsinghanand has said. They have been arrested and were in jail for their actions. But here the question is about the action of the petitioner as his tweet led to a law-and-order situation which is under investigation.”
Mehta said there is more than meets the eye. “It is not about an isolated tweet but his overall conduct. It is a question of whether he is part of a syndicate for which he puts out tweets to sensationalise matters and incite violence.” He accused Zubair of suppressing information about his Delhi case and rejection of his bail in his petition before the top court seeking bail. “These suppressions have to be explained.”
Raju, who represented the Uttar Pradesh Police chief and the investigating officer of the case, said the police dropped Section 67 of Information Technology Act (publishing obscene content) from the original case. He added charges under Indian Penal Code’s Sections 295A (insulting religion and religious beliefs) and 153A (promoting enmity between religious groups) remain.
Raju said Zubair’s tweet was also directed against a respected Hindu priest Bajrang Muni of Sitapur. “Calling a respected religious leader, a hate monger rings a different bell as it amounts to attempt to incite violence. You have outraged the feelings of a religious community and whether you did it unintentionally or as part of a larger syndicate is a matter of investigation and cannot be decided in a quashing petition or an appeal before the top court.”
