World
India
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the use of terms such as “Miyan-Tiyan” or “Pakistani,” while potentially offensive, does not meet the legal threshold for an offense under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to intentionally wounding religious sentiments.
The Court discharged the accused from this charge, holding that while the remarks lacked decorum, they did not constitute a criminal act under the provision.
Judicial Determination
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma issued the ruling in response to an appeal filed by Hari Nandan Singh, who had been accused of calling a government official “Pakistani” while the latter was carrying out his official duties.
“Undoubtedly, the statements made are in poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant shall also be discharged under Section 298 IPC,” the Court held in its judgment dated February 11.
Case Background & Allegations
The complainant, an Urdu translator and acting clerk under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, had delivered official documents to Singh pursuant to an appellate authority’s directive. Singh was initially reluctant to accept the documents but ultimately did so while allegedly making derogatory remarks concerning the complainant’s religion.
Additionally, Singh was accused of using criminal force to obstruct and intimidate the complainant in the execution of his duties. This led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Singh under multiple IPC provisions, including:
Section 298 – Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings
Section 504 – Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace
Section 506 – Criminal intimidation
Section 353 – Assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from duty
Section 323 – Voluntarily causing hurt
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis
Upon review, the Magistrate framed charges under Sections 353, 298, and 504 while dismissing charges under Sections 323 and 506 due to lack of evidence. Singh’s plea for discharge was denied by both the Sessions Court and the Rajasthan High Court, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, after assessing the merits of the case, found that there was no substantive evidence to uphold the charge under Section 353 IPC, determining that the High Court had erred in denying discharge under this section.
Similarly, the Court ruled that Section 504 IPC was inapplicable, as there was no concrete act by Singh that could reasonably be construed as provoking a breach of peace.
Regarding Section 298 IPC, the Court acknowledged that Singh’s remarks were inappropriate but clarified that they did not meet the statutory requirements necessary to establish criminal liability under this provision. Consequently, the Supreme Court discharged Singh of all charges, affirming that offensive language alone does not constitute a criminal offense unless it meets specific legal criteria.
This ruling reaffirms the principle that while offensive speech may be socially and morally objectionable, its criminalization requires a clear and direct infringement of legal provisions defining religious offense.
Read More: Bombay High Court Stays FIR Order Against Ex-SEBI Chief Buch, 5 Others
