Recently, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sandeep Tiwari, who faced allegations of posting abusive content on Facebook directed at former President Ram Nath Kovind.

In its ruling, the bench led by Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan highlighted the need for restraint and respect when addressing individuals in high constitutional positions, especially on social media.

The Court stated that while individuals are entitled to their opinions—whether positive or negative—and can express their likes or dislikes about a person, such expressions should not be derogatory or abusive.

“It is to be recalled that restraint with regard to making comments on any social media platform is desired to be observed by every person and those who are sitting on the highest constitutional posts are to be respected by one and all and must be paid due regard and honour. It has to be understood that a person may have like or dislike against any person or authority but it does not mean that he may start posting derogatory and abusive language for the top Constitutional Authority.”

Accused Sandeep Tiwari was charged under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, along with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Section 67 of the IT Act, for allegedly using derogatory language and casteist slurs against former President Kovind on the Facebook page of a local news channel, 'Sohawal Samachar, Faizabad.' He was arrested in August and had his bail denied by the Special Judge for the SC/ST Act in Ayodhya/Faizabad.

In seeking bail from the High Court, the accused's counsel argued before the single judge that, aside from the oral allegations, there is no material or evidence available against the appellant.

The counsel further submitted that the investigating officer had not identified the IP address of the device from which the alleged obscene or derogatory comments were purportedly uploaded. They argued that, at this stage, it cannot be definitively said that the appellant was responsible for posting the derogatory comments about the constitutional authority.

The counsel additionally argued that the informant in this case lacked the standing to file the FIR and that, aside from the oral evidence and a screenshot of the Facebook group—which is not admissible as evidence—there is no other material or evidence available against the appellant.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), representing the state, opposed the grant of bail to the accused. In this context, the bench observed that the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer indicated that the appellant's alleged comments were made not to derogate any constitutional authority, but rather in support of a political party.

The Court further noted that the appellant has been in jail since August 2, 2024, and has no prior criminal record. Additionally, the Court found no reason to believe that the appellant would flee from justice or misuse the liberty granted by bail if released.

The Court granted the appellant bail, emphasizing the necessity of restraint and respect when discussing individuals in high constitutional positions, especially on social media.

Case Title - Sandeep Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another