The Supreme Court ruled that using terms like “Pakistani” or “Miyan-Tiyan” may be offensive but does not amount to hurting religious sentiments under IPC Section 298, leading to the accused’s discharge from all charges.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India ruled that calling someone “Miyan-Tiyan” or “Pakistani” might be in bad taste, but it does not amount to hurting religious sentiments under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma gave this judgment while closing a case against a man accused of calling a government officer “Pakistani” while he was performing his official duties.
“Undoubtedly, the statements made are 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 Supreme Court said in its decision on February 11.
The case was filed by an Urdu translator and acting clerk who was working under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The accused, Hari Nandan Singh, had asked for certain information under the RTI Act from the additional collector, and the information was sent to him.
ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE | Seema Haider-Pakistani Woman Summoned as First Husband Appears in Noida Court
However, Singh was not satisfied and filed an appeal, allegedly after tampering with the documents he had received. During the appeal proceedings, the appellate authority ordered the complainant to personally hand over the information to Singh.
Following this order, the complainant visited Singh’s residence to deliver the documents. Initially, Singh refused to accept them but later took them after the complainant insisted. However, Singh allegedly used abusive words related to the complainant’s religion and even used criminal force against him while he was performing his official duties, intending to threaten and stop him from carrying out his work as a government officer.
Due to this incident, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Singh for multiple offences under IPC, including Section 298 (hurting religious sentiments), Section 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty), and Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt).
After investigating the case, the police filed a charge sheet against Singh. The Magistrate, after reviewing the evidence, took note of the charges and summoned Singh for trial.
Singh later applied for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). On March 24, 2022, the Magistrate ruled that there was enough material to frame charges against him under Sections 353, 298, and 504 of the IPC. However, the Magistrate also found that there was not enough proof for the charges under Sections 323 and 506 and discharged him from those offences.
Singh challenged this order in the Sessions Court and later in the Rajasthan High Court, but both courts dismissed his plea. He then approached the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: Pakistani Prisoners In Indian Jails|| SC Declines to Hear PIL Seeking Release of Convicts
The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the case and observed that there was no physical assault or use of force by Singh that would justify charges under Section 353 IPC. Because of this, the Court stated that the High Court should have discharged Singh under Section 353 IPC.
The Court also ruled that Singh could not be charged under Section 504 IPC, as his words or actions did not directly provoke a breach of peace. Hence, he should be discharged under Section 504 IPC as well.
Regarding Section 298 IPC, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the statements made by Singh were inappropriate. However, they did not legally amount to hurting religious sentiments under this provision.
Based on these observations, the Supreme Court allowed Singh’s appeal and discharged him of all charges.
Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen, along with advocates Arya Kumari, Divya Singhvi, Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mansi Gupta, and Vipin Gupta, represented the accused in this case.
On behalf of the State, Standing Counsel Vishnu Sharma and advocates Shiv Ram Sharma, Tulika Mukherjee, Venkat Narayan, and Beenu Sharma appeared.
CASE DETAILS:
Hari Nandan Singh vs State of Jharkhand.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
