The Supreme Court Today (Dec 16) sought the response of the Karnataka government on how the accused who allegedly shouted “Jai Shri Ram” inside a mosque in the State were identified. A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta asked whether CCTV or any other evidence was checked before ascertaining the identity of the accused. “How were the respondents identified. Did you see CCTV and made the accused party,” the Court asked.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, on Monday, sought clarification from the Karnataka government regarding how the accused individuals who allegedly shouted “Jai Shri Ram” inside a mosque were identified.
A Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta inquired whether CCTV footage or any other evidence was reviewed to ascertain the identities of the accused.
“How were the respondents identified? Did you see CCTV and make the accused party?”
-the Court asked.“They were shouting a particular religious phrase or a name. How is that an offence?”
-asked the bench on the plea filed by the complainant Haydhar Ali C M.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the complainant challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment that held shouting “Jai Shri Ram” inside a mosque does not amount to outraging religious feelings or sentiments.
The complainant’s counsel faced questions from the Bench, which directed that a copy of the appeal be served to the Karnataka government. The State has yet to file an appeal against the High Court’s verdict.
“Serve the State. Petitioner to serve the State of Karnataka. We are not issuing notice. List after two weeks,”
-the Court directed.
High Court’s Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
On September 13, the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two men accused of insulting religious beliefs. The case centers around allegations that Keerthan Kumar and Sachin Kumar, residents of Dakshin Kannada district, entered the Badnya Jumma Mashib mosque and shouted “Jai Shri Ram” in 2022. The duo allegedly threatened that “they will not allow Bearys (Muslims) to live in peace.”
Local police registered a complaint against the two individuals under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 295A (acts intended to outrage religious feelings), Section 447 (criminal trespass), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation). The accused subsequently sought to have the case quashed by the High Court.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court granted relief to the accused, stating:
“Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts ‘Jai Shri Ram’ it would outrage the religious feelings of any class. 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.”
Furthermore, the High Court concluded that the alleged act had no adverse effect on public order.
“The Apex Court holds that any and every act will not become an offence under Section 295A of the IPC. 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,”
-the High Court observed.
Complainant’s Appeal to the Supreme Court
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, the complainant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s interpretation was overly narrow and contrary to established judicial precedents. The complainant’s plea contended:
“It is submitted that the test to be employed in adjudicating a quashing petition is not whether the ingredients of offences alleged in the FIR are met, but whether the allegations made in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences.”
The complainant’s appeal further asserted that the allegations in the case, when taken at face value, clearly indicated the commission of multiple offences.
According to the complainant, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against the premature quashing of criminal proceedings during the investigative stage.
Observations on Religious Insensitivity and Threats
The appeal also criticized the High Court’s conclusions about the impact of shouting “Jai Shri Ram” in a mosque.
“For reasons best known to itself, (the High Court) has adopted a very peculiar approach and rendered a finding that ‘It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts ‘Jai Shri Ram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class,’ completely ignoring the fact that such utterances were made by the accused by trespassing into the Mosque… along with threatening the Muslim community. It is most deferentially submitted that such uncalled for and unjustified observations by the High Court will give a fillip to anti-social elements, who in recent times have been seen to be resorting to such religious and devotional chants to justify gruesome crimes like mob lynching and targeted attacks upon the minorities across the country,” the plea stated.
The Supreme Court’s inquiry into the matter underscores the complex legal and social implications surrounding the interpretation of religious sentiments, public order, and freedom of expression.
BACKGROUND
The case originates from an incident in September 2023 at the Badriya Juma Masjid in Dakshina Kannada district.
According to the allegations, two men unlawfully entered the mosque premises, raised “Jai Shri Ram” slogans, and issued threats against the Muslim community.
They allegedly declared that they
“will not let Bearys (or Byari, a Muslim community) live in peace.”
The incident was reportedly captured on the mosque’s CCTV system. Members of the mosque’s office intervened after hearing the commotion, which led to the men fleeing the scene. An FIR was subsequently filed, citing Sections 447, 295A, 505, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
These charges include criminal trespass, intentional insult to religious beliefs, public mischief, and criminal intimidation.
High Court’s Decision to Quash FIR
In October, the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR after previously staying the police investigation. The court reasoned that the accusations failed to meet the essential elements required to constitute the alleged offences under the IPC.
It further observed that chanting “Jai Shri Ram” does not inherently harm religious sentiments.
Petitioner’s Argument in Supreme Court
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the context of the incident was overlooked. The plea emphasized that the act of chanting “Jai Shri Ram” was not an isolated occurrence but was deliberately done after trespassing onto mosque property and issuing direct threats against the Muslim community.
The petition further claims that the High Court committed a legal error by halting the investigation prematurely and subsequently dismissing the FIR.
It asserts that the FIR outlined prima facie evidence of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, necessitating a thorough investigation.
CASE TITLE:
SRI. HAYDHARALI CM v. SRI KEERTHAN KUMAR & ORS., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 17009 OF 2024
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Jai Shri Ram Chant
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
