Gujarat High Court Quashes Case Against Surat Trader: printed Buddha images near a saree’s pallu and border, without deliberate and malicious intent, do not attract Section 295A IPC.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Ahmedabad: An FIR and all consequential proceedings under Sections 295A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a Surat textile trader, accused of hurting religious feelings by selling sarees and dress material printed with images of Lord Gautam Buddha near the pallu and border, have been quashed by the Gujarat High Court, which held that routine commercial activity without a demonstrable intent to denigrate a belief is not an offence [Bharatbhai Hirjibhai Shankar v. State of Gujarat and Another].
Justice P. M. Raval allowed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and made the rule absolute in the order dated October 7, 2026.
Intent, not imagery
The Court first set out the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal in which inherent powers can be used to prevent abuse of process. On the reach of Section 295A it relied on Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and the Constitution Bench decision in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., and held:
“Section 295A IPC does not contemplate each and every act to be penalised and every act of insult to or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens but it penalises only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class.”
The Bench examined the photographs on record, which the complainant’s counsel did not dispute, along with a report of the Police Inspector, Salabatpura Police Station, Surat dated August 7, 2024. That report recorded that the applicant had allegedly got the sarees and cloth printed with the image and that similar material was also sold by others in Surat. Even so, the Court found:
“…there appears nothing so as to suggest insult or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a particular class, that too, deliberate and malicious, intending to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs…”
Selling cloth is not malice
Drawing on the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s discussion of the words “deliberate” and “malicious” in Maninder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court held that the foundational ingredients of Section 295A were completely absent:
“Mere printing or selling of textile materials containing artistic depictions of a deity or revered icon, even if appearing on portions of a garment near the lower border or Pallu, cannot automatically be presumed to be an act driven by deliberate malice or calculated to disrupt public order. Commercial activity involving religious motifs, undertaken without any overt act, inflammatory rhetoric, or demonstrable intent to denigrate a religious belief, does not cross the threshold into a criminally punishable insult under Section 295A.”
A contrary view, the Court added, would stretch the criminal statute beyond its intended constitutional parameters and punish commercial practices where no criminal mens rea exists. Taken at face value, the uncontroverted facts in the FIR fail to establish a prima facie case of an aggravated insult to religion.
How the case began
The FIR (C.R. No. II-1169 of 2017) was registered on December 21, 2017 at Salabatpura Police Station, Surat. The de facto complainant, the President of the Samast Yuva Ambedkar Samaj, alleged that members of his community had told him a few days earlier that sarees and textile material bearing printed images of Lord Gautam Buddha were on sale at several shops in the textile market. According to the complaint, the images sat on the lower portion of the garment, namely the feet, border or pallu area, and this was calculated to degrade the deity and wound the religious sentiments of the community. These are allegations and have not been tested at trial.
Two positions before the Court
The applicant, who trades in sarees and dress material under the name Shivam Textiles, argued that no ingredient of Section 295A was made out even if the FIR was taken at face value. He submitted that he procures goods from manufacturers according to designs in trend, that the prints were not of any deity as alleged, that there was no intention to hurt religious feelings, and that the FIR was filed two days after the alleged incident of December 19, 2017 without explanation. He also alleged that the complainant is in the same business and that the FIR was lodged out of business rivalry to exert pressure.
The complainant and the State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the photographs on record themselves showed the allegations to be correct and a strong prima facie case was made out. They urged that the Court should not conduct a mini trial at the quashing stage, that inherent powers must be used sparingly, and that the truth should be left to emerge at trial.
The result
Finding that continuing the prosecution would be a clear abuse of the process of law, and that the case fell within categories (1), (3), (5) and (7) of Bhajan Lal, the Court quashed the FIR with all consequential criminal proceedings qua the applicant. The rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.
Why the order matters
The order restates that Section 295A is confined to the aggravated form of insult to religion, committed with deliberate and malicious intention, and that the appearance of a revered figure on a commercial product does not by itself supply that intention. The complainant’s sentiments about the placement of the images were recorded as allegations, and the Court made no finding that they were insincere.
At the same time, the ruling turns on the facts before the Court and the absence of any overt act, inflammatory rhetoric or demonstrable intent to denigrate. It does not hold that every use of religious imagery on goods is beyond the reach of the law.
Case Title: Bharatbhai Hirjibhai Shankar v. State of Gujarat and Another [R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 854 of 2018]
Bench: Justice P. M. Raval, Gujarat High Court
Date of Order: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Rajesh K. Kanani for the applicant; Additional Public Prosecutor K. M. Antani for the State; Advocate N. K. Majmudar for respondent No. 2