<p>Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday refused to quash an FIR lodged against Alt News co-founder Mohammad Zubair by the Ghaziabad Police, accusing him of promoting enmity among religious groups.</p>.<p>The FIR against Zubair was lodged following a complaint by an associate of controversial priest Yati Narsinghanand.</p>.Constitution does not support forced or fraudulent conversion: Allahabad High Court.<p>However, a two-judge bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Dr Y K Srivastava said Zubair may not be arrested during investigation. The court directed that the investigation will proceed in pursuance of the FIR.</p>.<p>The FIR was lodged on the complaint by one Udita Tyagi, general secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust, who had claimed that Zubair posted a video clip of an old programme of Narsinghanand on October 3, 2024 with the intent to provoke violence by Muslims against him.</p>.<p>It was further alleged in the complaint that Zubair posted edited clips of the priest on X (formerly Twitter), containing Narsinghanand's alleged incendiary remarks on Prophet Muhammad to incite radical sentiments against the controversial priest. In his post, he called the alleged speech of Narsinghanand "derogatory", she complained.</p>.<p>In his writ petition, Zubair moved the high court, requesting it to quash of the FIR and provide protection from coercive action. In his plea, he stated that his X post does not call for violence against Narsinghanand.</p>.<p>Zubair said he had merely alerted the police authorities about Narsinghanand's actions and sought action according to law, and this could not amount to promoting disharmony or ill-will between two classes of people.</p>.<p>He also challenged the invocation of the defamation provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on the grounds that seeking action against Narsinghanand by sharing his own videos, which are already in the public domain, cannot amount to defamation.</p>.<p>Earlier, after hearing counsels for the parties, the court had reserved its judgment on March 3. </p>
<p>Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday refused to quash an FIR lodged against Alt News co-founder Mohammad Zubair by the Ghaziabad Police, accusing him of promoting enmity among religious groups.</p>.<p>The FIR against Zubair was lodged following a complaint by an associate of controversial priest Yati Narsinghanand.</p>.Constitution does not support forced or fraudulent conversion: Allahabad High Court.<p>However, a two-judge bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Dr Y K Srivastava said Zubair may not be arrested during investigation. The court directed that the investigation will proceed in pursuance of the FIR.</p>.<p>The FIR was lodged on the complaint by one Udita Tyagi, general secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust, who had claimed that Zubair posted a video clip of an old programme of Narsinghanand on October 3, 2024 with the intent to provoke violence by Muslims against him.</p>.<p>It was further alleged in the complaint that Zubair posted edited clips of the priest on X (formerly Twitter), containing Narsinghanand's alleged incendiary remarks on Prophet Muhammad to incite radical sentiments against the controversial priest. In his post, he called the alleged speech of Narsinghanand "derogatory", she complained.</p>.<p>In his writ petition, Zubair moved the high court, requesting it to quash of the FIR and provide protection from coercive action. In his plea, he stated that his X post does not call for violence against Narsinghanand.</p>.<p>Zubair said he had merely alerted the police authorities about Narsinghanand's actions and sought action according to law, and this could not amount to promoting disharmony or ill-will between two classes of people.</p>.<p>He also challenged the invocation of the defamation provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on the grounds that seeking action against Narsinghanand by sharing his own videos, which are already in the public domain, cannot amount to defamation.</p>.<p>Earlier, after hearing counsels for the parties, the court had reserved its judgment on March 3. </p>