The Allahabad High Court has refused to grant bail to 62-year-old Ansar Ahmed Siddique, who stands accused of sharing a Facebook post allegedly promoting pro-Pakistan slogans and content encouraging “jihad.”

Justice Siddhartha, while delivering the order, observed that increasing judicial tolerance towards acts with anti-national overtones may be contributing to the rising frequency of such incidents. "The commission of such offences is becoming a routine affair in this country because the courts are liberal and tolerant towards such acts of people with an anti-national bent of mind,” the Court remarked, adding that this was not a fit case for bail at the current stage.

The Court found that Siddique’s actions were prima facie disrespectful to the Constitution and posed a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the country. “Clearly, the act of the applicant is disrespectful to the Constitution and its ideals and also, his act amounts to challenging the sovereignty of India and adversely affecting the unity and integrity of India,” the order stated.

Noting Siddique's age and citizenship, the Court emphasized that being born in independent India, he was expected to uphold constitutional values. “His irresponsible and anti-national conduct does not entitle him to seek protection of his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the judge noted.

Despite denying bail, the Court directed that the trial proceedings against Siddique be concluded at the earliest.

The case stems from an FIR lodged at the Chhatari police station in Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. According to the complaint, Siddique had shared a Facebook video on May 3, which included the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” and called for support for “Pakistani brothers,” while allegedly advocating “jihad.” The post was reported to have hurt national sentiments and undermined the sovereignty of India.

The case has been registered under sections 197 (acts prejudicial to national integration) and 152 (acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

During the hearing, Siddique’s counsel argued that the accused had merely shared a video and did not intend to incite any unrest. He also pointed out that Siddique was a senior citizen undergoing medical treatment.

Opposing the bail plea, the state government’s counsel argued that the post had been made shortly after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack—which claimed 26 lives—and reflected sympathy toward anti-national elements. It was contended that Siddique’s actions went against the interest of the nation and did not merit bail.

In its June 26 order, the Court underlined the constitutional duties enshrined in Article 51A, particularly sub-clauses (a) and (c), which mandate all citizens to respect the Constitution and uphold the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.