SC dismisses Neha Singh Rathore’s plea to quash FIR but keeps right to contest charges open

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Bhojpuri singer and activist Neha Singh Rathore, who had sought to quash an FIR registered against her for her social media posts about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Bihar elections, and Hindu-Muslim politics.

A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi said that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage. However, the Court clarified that Rathore could raise her objections regarding the charges before the trial court.

The case stems from an FIR lodged in Lucknow earlier this year, following Rathore’s social media posts after the Pahalgam terror attack. In those posts, she had criticised Prime Minister Modi, alleging that he used national security issues for electoral gains and accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of polarising voters on religious and nationalistic lines.

Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had refused to quash the FIR, noting that her remarks mentioned the Prime Minister in a derogatory way and connected religion with elections. The Court also pointed out that the timing of her posts, immediately after the terror attack, added sensitivity to the matter.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Rathore and argued that the FIR was an abuse of legal process. He highlighted that the FIR invoked serious offences such as waging war against the State and mutiny, which could not reasonably apply to social media posts.

“How does a tweet amount to mutiny? That’s the charge — life imprisonment!” Sibal argued, expressing disbelief at the gravity of the accusations.

The Bench, however, stated that the High Court’s order merely dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR and did not determine guilt. “It’s merely a rejection of the quashing petition. Nothing else. Go and face trial,” said Justice Maheshwari.

Sibal maintained that a trial under such severe charges was unjustified. “I can’t be tried for mutiny for a tweet! I’m only saying quash the proceedings under that provision,” he submitted.

Responding, the Court said Rathore was free to raise these objections during framing of charges before the trial court. “You can raise these objections during framing of charges. We’ll keep your right reserved,” the Bench observed.

Even as Sibal cautioned that the charges carried the risk of arrest, the Bench refused to intervene, stating that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

In its order, the Supreme Court noted:

“At this stage, we are not interfering with the argument that the charge of mutiny cannot be made out. However, liberty is granted to raise these issues at the time of framing of charges or to apply for discharge before the trial court.”

With this, the Court dismissed the plea but allowed Rathore the option to contest the charges at a later stage in the trial.