Introduction:

In the matter of Madan Mohan Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, the Uttarakhand High Court, comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, delivered a strong and definitive ruling addressing the alleged misuse of social media to provoke mob violence under the guise of cow protection. The petitioner, Joshi, approached the Court seeking quashing of an FIR and protection from arrest after he was accused of instigating a violent mob that nearly lynched a vehicle driver in Ramnagar, Nainital on the false claim that the meat being transported was cow meat. The Court not only refused to quash the FIR but also sharply criticized Joshi’s social media behaviour—especially a Facebook Live stream where he allegedly announced a “Kranti” (revolution), which the Bench considered as an attempt to deride democratically elected governments and provoke unrest. The High Court viewed the allegations with utmost seriousness given the sensitive communal context and the gravity of mob lynching incidents in recent years. It further noted that the petitioner had been evading arrest despite multiple police attempts, leading to the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant and initiation of proceedings to declare him an absconder under Section 84 BNSS. Against this factual backdrop, the Court held that the petitioner’s conduct disentitled him to any form of extraordinary relief under Article 226, especially when the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to protect an absconder. Emphasizing principles from binding Supreme Court rulings, the Bench reiterated that at the FIR stage the High Court cannot dive into factual disputes, and that investigation must proceed unhindered. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed with strong remarks about the petitioner’s conduct and the dangers of using social media to fan violence under misleading narratives.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, through counsel, argued that the FIR was a gross misuse of criminal law and that he was, in fact, a “good Samaritan” who reached the spot only to prevent violence, not instigate it. He contended that the video evidence would show that he was calming the crowd and requesting them not to assault the driver. He stated that as an animal lover, his concern was limited to ensuring that no illegal slaughter was taking place and that his involvement stemmed from a sense of civic duty rather than communal animus. The petitioner denied making any false assertions about cow slaughter and argued that he merely broadcasted the incident live to ensure transparency and to discourage wrongdoing by any party. He further argued that the allegations of instigating mob violence were vague, unsubstantiated, and politically motivated, and thus, continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to misuse of police powers. He also submitted that the offences alleged under Sections 109 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were non-existent on facts because there was neither any intention nor any direct act on his part that encouraged the mob to attack the driver. He urged that since no overt act of violence was attributed to him and he did not participate in the assault, the FIR was unsustainable. The petitioner also argued that arrest was unnecessary and harsh, especially when he was willing to cooperate with the investigation. Overall, he claimed that he was wrongly painted as an instigator when he was actually attempting to defuse the situation.

Arguments of the State:

The State strongly opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was not only guilty of provoking mob violence but also persistently evaded arrest. The prosecution submitted that credible evidence showed the petitioner spreading false and unverified information by claiming that cow meat was being transported, despite knowing no such verification had been carried out. This false claim, paired with his Facebook Live broadcast, allegedly incited a gathering of a large mob, creating a volatile and dangerous situation. The State emphasized that the petitioner’s conduct caused significant communal tension, and it was only timely intervention by the police that saved the driver’s life. The State informed the Court that a Non-Bailable Warrant had been issued, multiple raids were conducted to apprehend the petitioner, and proceedings under Section 84 BNSS to declare him a proclaimed offender were already in motion due to his non-cooperation. The prosecution highlighted that 16 individuals involved in the mob attack had already been identified, 13 of whom were arrested, while the petitioner and two others remained absconding, showing deliberate avoidance. The State argued that granting him protection would undermine the rule of law and send the wrong message in an era where social media is often used irresponsibly to provoke violence. The State relied on authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including Srikant Upadhyay (2024) and Neeharika Infrastructure (2021), to state that the Court cannot issue a stay on arrest when not inclined to quash the FIR. It therefore sought outright dismissal of the writ petition, asserting that the investigation must proceed freely.

Court’s Judgment:

The Uttarakhand High Court, after reviewing the facts and the petitioner’s conduct, refused to grant any relief and dismissed the writ petition in its entirety. At the outset, the Court expressed strong disapproval of the petitioner’s social media activity, observing that his call for a “Kranti” and his derogatory remarks towards democratically elected governments were “condemnable.” It held that such statements, coupled with real-time Facebook Live coverage at the scene where a driver was being assaulted, required a full and fair investigation rather than premature judicial interference. The Court emphasized that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that at this stage, it would be inappropriate to evaluate whether the petitioner was an instigator or a peacemaker—questions that must be determined through evidence at trial. The Bench highlighted that photographs clearly showed the injured victim bleeding from the head, making the seriousness of the situation undeniable. Further, the Court found that the petitioner had been actively evading arrest, and since the writ petition was filed only after a Non-Bailable Warrant and proclamation proceedings were initiated, the petitioner could not invoke writ jurisdiction to shield himself. Citing Srikant Upadhyay (2024), the Court reiterated that individuals who defy lawful orders cannot seek protection from higher courts. Additionally, relying on Neeharika Infrastructure (2021), the Bench clarified that courts should not grant interim protection from arrest when they are not inclined to quash the FIR itself. The Court remarked that the fairness of investigation cannot be compromised by tying the hands of the police, and any interference at this stage would preempt lawful inquiry. The Bench also noted that the petitioner’s own admission of being present at the scene and broadcasting the event live strengthens the need for proper investigation. Ultimately, the Court rejected the petition and declared that no relief could be granted in favor of a person accused of instigating violence, especially when the case touches upon sensitive issues such as communal harmony, mob justice, and misuse of social media. The judgment stands as a strong reaffirmation of judicial intolerance toward mob incitement and evasion of law enforcement.