The Allahabad High Court refused to grant relief to Owais Khan, accused of making derogatory remarks about Lord Shiva on social media.
A Single Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Owais Khan.
In this matter an FIR was lodged on 04.06.2022 under Sections 153-A, 295-A IPC and Section 6 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station Chharra, District Aligarh.
The allegation in the FIR was that the applicant had posted derogatory remarks and also deliberately posted derogatory photos of Lord Shiva on social media platforms with the intention of hurting the religious feelings of other communities.
It was further alleged that he also posted a comment that the divider on the road was treated as the Shivling and has been put to ridicule, and further had used derogatory language on Hindu Society. After a detailed investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 02.09.2022. The trial Court had taken cognizance and issued summons on 13.01.2023.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant, praying for quashing the charge sheet dated 02.09.2022, and summoning order dated 13.01.2023, as well as entire proceedings of Case under Sections 153-A, 295-A IPC and Section 6 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station Chharra, District Aligarh.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not posted the comment himself but the same was made after hacking his account.
He further submitted that, assuming the alleged comment has been posted, still it does not constitute any offence, and is rather an innocuous statement made without intending to hurt religious feelings of any community. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against him. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant, and hence, all the proceedings initiated should be quashed.
Per contra, A.G.A, Shashi Dhar Pandey, has vehemently opposed the application and contended that after investigation a charge sheet has been filed in this matter.
He further submitted that the comment of the applicant was outrageous and had hurt the religious sentiment. The Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.
The Court observed that,
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The submissions of hacking and deliberate comments made by the applicant relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage it is only to be seen as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
In a democratic society, such as ours, where freedom of speech is held in high regard, it is imperative to understand that this freedom is not absolute. It comes with responsibilities, foremost among them being the obligation to respect the sentiments and beliefs of others. The misuse of freedom of speech to denigrate or insult religious beliefs undermines the very fabric of constitutionalism and fundamental human belief upon which our society is built.
It is well-established that religious sentiment holds immense significance for citizens, and any act aimed at denigrating or disintegrating such sentiments constitutes a grave affront to the principle of tolerance and secularism. The applicant’s actions, which demonstrate a blatant disregard for religious sentiments, cannot be viewed as mere inadvertence but would be a deliberate affront to the cherished values of our pluralistic society.
Moreover, the applicant’s conduct by posting derogatory statements is not only an affront to the religious sentiments of the affected community but also undermines the foundational principles of our democracy. By making a mockery of a community’s beliefs and comparing them to mundane objects, the accused has displayed a callous disregard for the deeply held beliefs and sentiments of millions.
The Court said that,
Religious sentiment holds immense significance for citizens, serving as a source of solace, identity, and community cohesion. Any attempt to denigrate or disparage these sentiments constitute a grave affront to the dignity and religious beliefs of individuals. The applicant’s actions, which seek to mock and ridicule the religious beliefs of others, not only cause emotional distress but also undermine the foundational values of our democratic society. It is incumbent upon the judiciary to send a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate legal consequences.
The intent behind the applicant’s actions must be scrutinized closely. It is evident from the nature of the derogatory remarks and the deliberate posting of a derogatory photo of Shivling that the applicant harbored a malicious intent to outrage the religious feelings of a particular community. This malicious intent is indicative of a deliberate attempt to inflict harm and offend the religious sensibilities of others. Such actions cannot be excused as mere expressions of opinion but must be recognized for what they are: deliberate acts of religious vilification there as a deliberate attempt to insult and hurt the sentiments of a particular community.
It is imperative to underscore that this is not a case of hypersensitivity, but rather a matter concerning the sanctity and reverence attached to religious symbols by individuals who hold them divine. While some may perceive the Shivling as an object of religious significance, for many, it embodies profound spiritual and cultural significance. Hence, it is not the reaction of a hypersensitive individual that is at stake here, but the impact on those who genuinely hold the Shivling sacrosanct and are deeply affected by the derogatory social media post and comments. In a society that values religious pluralism and mutual respect, it is incumbent upon individuals to exercise prudence and refrain from actions that may cause unwarranted offence or hurt the sentiments of others, particularly in matters as sensitive as religious beliefs and practices.
“In this case the comments made on Shivling clearly show the malicious intent harboured by the applicant on the religious feelings of other communities. Such action cannot be clothed as a protection of right enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, as apparently it was a deliberate attempt by the applicant to insult others’ religious sentiments.
As far as proceedings are concerned, the Court has to evaluate whether the application preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C needs to be entertained.
The facts as alleged in the matter cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.
This matter does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, under which the inherent powers granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C could be exercised”, the Court further observed while dismissing the application.