The Karnataka High Court, on Tuesday, October 15, quashed a criminal case against two persons for allegedly raising "Jai Shri Ram" slogans inside a mosque. The court observed that it was “ununderstandable” as to how shouting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogan would outrage the religious feeling of any class. 

A single division bench headed by Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing an appeal petition by the accused persons in the case – Keerthan Kumar and Sachin Kumar.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in ‘Mahendra Singh Dhoni v Yerraguntla Shyamsundar’ case ruled that not all acts would constitute an offence under section 295A to insult or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of class of citizens, the section under which the accused in the case were also booked. However, the SC case was notably different in context, involving a complaint against cricketer MS Dhoni and a magazine editor for depicting Dhoni as Lord Vishnu on a magazine cover, holding various commercial products.

On September 24, 2023, a 33-year-old Muslim man from Bantra village filed a complaint at the  Kadaba police station saying that at about 10.50 pm that day, some unknown persons barged into the mosque in the area and shouted “Jai Shri Ram” slogans. They also allegedly threatened with chants of “we will not spare Bearys.” Bearys are a Muslim community residing in coastal Karnataka. 

Stating that Hindus and Muslims in the jurisdiction of Kadaba police station were living in great harmony, the complainant alleged that the miscreants shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ were intended at creating a rift between the communities.

The next day, the police discovered CCTV footage from the mosque, which showed an unknown car and some unknown persons in the bike roaming around the mosque. They were later identified as Keerthan Kumar (28) and Sachin Kumar (26) of Bilineli village from the same taluk. The duo were booked under sections 447 (punishment for criminal trespass), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Stating that section 295A dealt with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, the judge observed that it was “ununderstandable” so as to how shouting this slogan would constitute the said offence. “When the complainant himself states that Hindu – Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony,” the court said. It further referred to the Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of ‘Mahendra Singh Dhoni v Yerraguntla Shyamsundar’.

This case pertains to a case filed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Shyamsundar, alleging that the cricketer Dhoni and the editor of Business Today hurt religious sentiments of Hindus. Business Today had published a story in 2013 titled ‘The God of Big Deals’, with the cover image of Dhoni depicted as Lord Vishnu, holding various products, including a bag of chips and a soft drink. The story was about how the cricketer endorsed several brands.

In this case, Dhoni and the editor were charged with section 295A, and the court found that the offence was not made as the duo did not “maliciously hurt the religious sentiments of the complainant”. The top court also observed that the section only penalises ‘acts of insults’ or ‘attempts to insult’ the religion or religious belief of a class of citizens, which are “perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class of citizens”. “Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the Section,” the apex court had said.

Justice Nagaprasanna relied on this judgement to rule that “The acts that have no effect on bringing out peace or destruction of public order will not lead to an offence under Section 295A of the IPC.”

Regarding section 505 (statements conducing public mischief), the judge ruled that this would make an offence if a person made a statement and it results in “inducing or conducing public

mischief”. “There is no allegation that the incident alleged has caused public mischief or any rift,” he said. The judge further added that the complainant himself said that he did not see the alleged perpetrators, and held section 506 does not apply. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code applies to criminal intimidation. The judge also said that the complaint “nowhere even remotely touches upon the ingredients” of sections 503 and 447 of the IPC. While section 503 deals with “threat to injure a person,” section 447 pertains to criminal trespass. 

Observing that permitting further proceedings against the duo would become an “abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice”, Justice Nagaprasanna quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused.