The Gujarat High Court has directed the State authorities not to take any coercive steps against Congress leader Rajesh Soni, who is facing an FIR for allegedly posting content on Facebook that questioned the Indian Army’s credibility during a military operation referred to as “Operation Sindoor.”

Justice Hasmukh D Suthar, in his June 20 order, clarified that while the investigation may proceed, Soni must cooperate fully. The Court noted that there was no prima facie material to suggest that the alleged social media post incited secession, rebellion, or posed a threat to national sovereignty or public order.

The FIR, filed by the Cyber Crime Cell, invoked Sections 152 and 353(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). These provisions relate to acts endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India and statements conducing to public mischief, respectively. The complaint alleged that Soni, through his Facebook page titled “Rajesh Soni – Delegate AICC – General Secretary, Gujarat Congress”, had made misleading and anti-social posts, one of which allegedly undermined public trust in the Indian Army.

However, the Court held that:

“There is no material to suggest that the posts made by the petitioner amount to inciting or attempting to incite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities… or endanger the sovereignty, unity, or integrity of India.”

The Bench further referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imran Pratapgarhi, emphasizing the need for preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in such matters. It found that the FIR in question was registered without such verification or formation of requisite satisfaction.

The Court observed that the State was unable to show any disruption, mutiny, or institutional disobedience resulting from the alleged posts. Accordingly, while issuing notice and posting the matter for further hearing on August 12, the Court ordered:

“Meanwhile, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner qua the offence under Sections 152 and 353(1)(a) of BNS. However, let investigation for the offence in question be continued. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.”

Appearing in person, Rajesh Soni submitted that the FIR was filed with malafide intent to harass him and that he had merely reposted content sourced from elsewhere. He argued that his actions did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences invoked and described the FIR as a “gross abuse of process of law.”

In response, the State’s counsel maintained that the posts were misleading, intended to cause unrest, and prima facie attracted the invoked offences. The State urged the Court not to grant interim relief, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation.

Case Title: Rajesh Thanaji Soni v. State of Gujarat & Ors.