<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea by folk singer and Congress sympathiser Neha Singh Rathore against an FIR lodged against her over a social media post on the Pahalgam terror attack.</p><p>A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi told her to face the proceedings, while rejecting her plea.</p><p>The court said that at this stage, it is not interfering in the issue of the "charge of mutiny" (endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India). </p>.SC allows judicial officers with 7 years experience as advocates to apply for district judges.<p>The bench, however, made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. </p><p>"It is merely a rejection of quashing. Go and face trial," the bench said. </p><p>The bench also granted her liberty to raise the issue at the time of framing of charges.</p><p>The petitioner had moved the apex court against an order passed by the Allahabad High Court on September 19. </p><p>The high court had refused to quash the FIR. </p><p>A division bench of the high court had directed her to appear before the investigating officer on September 26 and cooperate with the probe till the filing of the police report. The FIR accused Rathore of targeting a particular religious community and threatening the unity of the country.</p><p>She challenged the FIR filed against her by a complainant at the Hazratganj Police Station in the last week of April. </p><p>The complainant had accused Rathore of having "repeatedly attempted to incite one community against another on religious grounds". </p><p>Rathore was booked by Hazratganj police in Lucknow in April under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) over her X posts.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea by folk singer and Congress sympathiser Neha Singh Rathore against an FIR lodged against her over a social media post on the Pahalgam terror attack.</p><p>A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi told her to face the proceedings, while rejecting her plea.</p><p>The court said that at this stage, it is not interfering in the issue of the "charge of mutiny" (endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India). </p>.SC allows judicial officers with 7 years experience as advocates to apply for district judges.<p>The bench, however, made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. </p><p>"It is merely a rejection of quashing. Go and face trial," the bench said. </p><p>The bench also granted her liberty to raise the issue at the time of framing of charges.</p><p>The petitioner had moved the apex court against an order passed by the Allahabad High Court on September 19. </p><p>The high court had refused to quash the FIR. </p><p>A division bench of the high court had directed her to appear before the investigating officer on September 26 and cooperate with the probe till the filing of the police report. The FIR accused Rathore of targeting a particular religious community and threatening the unity of the country.</p><p>She challenged the FIR filed against her by a complainant at the Hazratganj Police Station in the last week of April. </p><p>The complainant had accused Rathore of having "repeatedly attempted to incite one community against another on religious grounds". </p><p>Rathore was booked by Hazratganj police in Lucknow in April under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) over her X posts.</p>
