Dulal Ghosh Vs The State Of Tripura: Unintentionally Hurting Religious Sentiments Does Not Amounts To An Offence U/S 295A

DATE OF JUDGMENT:26th February, 2021.

JUDGE: Akhil Kureshi.

PARTIES

• Dulal Ghosh (Appellant)
• State of Tripura (Respondent)

SUMMARY: The following case deals with the issue of whether or not careless insults to religion made unwittingly or without deliberation would amount to an offence under the provisions of Sec. 295A of the IPC.

OVERVIEW

1. The appellant filed a case before the court seeking quashing of an FIR filed against him by the respondent for a comment posted by him on social media. The comment is said to have allegedly hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community by insulting the Bhagavad Gita.
2. As per the complainant, the appellant made distasteful remarks on the Hindu religion by saying that the Gita is a “thakbaji Gita” in the comment posted by him on social media.
3. The appellant claimed that the comment was misinterpreted by the complainant and that the post in question was deliberately twisted. He submitted that he had neither the intention nor the desire to hurt the feelings of the Hindu community.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted before the court that there was a clear attempt to hurt the religious feelings of the Hindu community "by making derogatory remarks.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor also argued that the appellant was backtracking on his comment after a criminal complaint has been lodged against him.
6. The matter is now before the court.

ISSUES

The following were the issues analyzed by the court

• Whether the act of the appellant amounted to an offence under the provisions of Sec. 295A of the IPC.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Sec. 295A of the Indian Penal Code: Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage reli­gious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or reli­gious beliefs.
• Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: Right to freedom of speech and expression.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

1. The counsel for the appellant argued that no singular post in isolation of the nature which the appellant has placed, even if the meaning attributed by the complainant is taken to be true, would constitute an offence under Section 295A of IPC.
2. The appellant argued that he had no intention to demean the Bhagavad Gita and hurt the ‘religious feelings’ of any community or class. Further arguments were made by the appellant that the complainant has given a wrong connotation of the term used by the appellant in order to make out a false case of criminal offence.
3. The counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is a rationalist and has been posting various comments on social media which may not be agreeable to certain readers. Only on account of his personal beliefs he is being targeted and falsely implicated in a criminal case.
4. The counsel for the appellant went on to argue that the post in question is deliberately twisted and misinterpreted. He further argued that the words used by the appellant do not amount to any derogation or insult. The complainant has given a wrong connotation of the term used by the appellant in order to make out a false case of criminal offence.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that there was a clear attempt and intention to hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community.
6. He argued that the court should not interfere at a stage where investigation is yet to be completed. This is not the only occasion on which the appellant has shown such tendency to hurt religious feelings. The appellant’s post must be seen in the background of his previous posts.
7. He also argued that the appellant was backtracking on his comment after a criminal case had been filed against him. He further submitted that based on the post by the appellant on social media, he is liable to punishment under the provisions of Sec. 295A of the IPC.
8. The court, while giving out a judgment, placed reliance on the 1957 Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP1, which stated that "Section 295A does not penalize any and every act of insult or an attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs but it penalizes only those acts of insults or attempts which have been perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a particular class."
9. The court further held that the expression thus used by the appellant which is in total isolation, without virtually any background or foreground, therefore would require much twisting in order to fit within the scheme of Section 295A of IPC which would be wholly impermissible.

CONCLUSION

The crux of the present case hinges on the question of whether or not the provisions of Sec. 295A of the Indian Penal Code can be applicable to posts on social media which allegedly hurt religious sentiments when done in an unintentional and careless manner.

The court in the present case held that Sec. 295A of the IPC is not applicable in this instance. The question is, by placing such a post has the poster committed offence under Section 295A of IPC? When the answer to this question is in the negative, the complaint must be quashed, held the court. The expression thus used by the appellant which is in total isolation, without virtually any background or foreground, therefore would require much twisting in order to fit within the scheme of Section 295A of IPC which would be wholly impermissible. It is a written expression which has to be interpreted. How, such a post can be read when spoken is of no consequence.

The Court also rejected the Additional Public Prosecutor's contention that the appellant has a habit of insulting the Hindu religion and that his post must be seen in the background of his previous posts.

Coming to the post by itself, the Court said, without there being any background or foreground, it is not possible for any reasonable human being with ordinary common sense and intelligence, to discern any derogatory or demeaning meaning being ascribed by the appellant to the holy book.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement