Mild Criticism That Doesn’t Grossly Offend Religious Sentiments Can’t Be Criminalized: P&H HC Quashes 'Blasphemy' Case Against Gurmeet Ram Rahim
The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an FIR against Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim, head of ‘Dera Sacha Sauda’ (DSS), who was accused of hurting religious sentiments over his 'blasphemous' remarks on Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas.
The Court observed that mild criticism or some expression that does not grossly offend religious sentiments of a community cannot be criminalized.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim (petitioner) had filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. for quashing an FIR registered against him under Section 295A of IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, “In crux, to bring a charge under Section 295A of the IPC, it needs to be demonstrated that the insult was intentional, meant solely to insult someone and was driven by a malicious motive. A mild criticism or some expression that does not grossly offend the religious sensibilities of a community, cannot be criminalized. The provisions of Section 295A of the IPC are intended to strike a balance between freedom of speech and the protection of religious sentiments.”
The key question before the Bench was whether the petitioner while delivering the discourse, harboured a deliberate and malicious intent to incite outrage among any segment of the populace on account of their religious beliefs.
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur represented the petitioner while Addl. A.G. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala and Advocate Navraj Singh represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
In 2016, during a ‘Satsang’, the petitioner had delivered a discourse, the central theme of which was the sacred and vulnerable relationship between a spiritual master and his disciples. In the course of the said discourse, the petitioner illuminated the significance of unwavering faith that a disciple must place in his spiritual master, drawing upon timeless wisdom and examples from various revered historical texts. Pertinently, while elucidating this spiritual tenet, the petitioner provided an illustrative incident involving Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas, which forms the core of the FIR in question, and had distressed the complainant. As per the senior counsel for the petitioner, an FIR was however, lodged at a highly belated stage as the discourse in question was delivered by the petitioner in 2016, whereas the FIR was lodged in the year 2023 i.e., after a delay of seven years. In the seven years, following the discourse in question, no complaint was lodged or received against the petitioner, from any quarter whatsoever.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “Blasphemy is defined as showing irreverence towards sacred elements of religion, including God, religious beliefs, revered icons, or anything highly confidential. For instance, if an individual intentionally makes certain derogatory remarks about a religious figure, like some Deity, with the deliberate intention of offending the religious sentiments of a particular sect or community, such an act would be considered blasphemous.”
The Court further observed that Section 295A of the IPC does not impose penalty for every act of insult; but only specifically penalizes deliberate and aggravated acts of insult aimed at outraging religious feelings of the community.
“Upon careful scrutiny, this Court finds no evidence of any distortion or misrepresentation within the incident relating to the life of Sant Kabir Das. The narrative does not seem to insult the religious sentiments or beliefs of any specific group, as it is deeply rooted in historical resources. The gist of the stories given out by the petitioner during his discourse and the various historical texts which have been annexed with the petition is the same. They all describe an instance where Sant Kabir Das is seen walking with a prostitute and carrying colourful bottles, that are mistaken for alcohol”, noted the Court.
The Court also noted that people around Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravi Das criticise Kabir Das for his actions, and even a King, who previously respected Kabir Das, is hesitant and does not leave his throne to welcome him.
“No evidence of malice or deliberate intent to harm any individual or community while delivering the discourse is discernible. On the contrary, the discourse of the petitioner, as already observed earlier, aligns with the various historical texts annexed with the petition. The only key distinction, if any, is that the petitioner has used local colloquial terms while delivering the discourse. However, this in no way would imply any disrespect, malice or intentional affront to the followers of Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas”, said the Court.
The Court added that when on an examination of the allegations levelled in the FIR, the court does not find any apparent ingredient of the offence alleged, it is incumbent upon the court to step in and put a lid on the ongoing criminal proceedings against an accused. It concluded that there is neither any mens rea nor any distortion or exaggeration of the incident pertaining to Kabir Das and Ravidas on part of the petitioner that it could have offended their followers.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.
Cause Title- Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan v. State of Punjab and another (Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:138915)
