'Abusing Community Leader Not Insult To Religion': Bombay High Court Quashes FIR U/S 295A IPC For Insulting Maratha Leader Manoj Jarange

A person may represent a religion in certain ways but s/he does not become a 'religion' himself, the Bombay High Court observed while holding that any abuse or use of disrespectful words for a socio political figure cannot be equated with insult to faith.

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten Venegavkar, sitting at Aurangabad, quashed an FIR lodged against a man, booked for hurling abuses at Maratha leader and activist Manoj Jarange-Patil, who has been spearheading the protests for the reservation for the community.

“The conflict that the present case posses before us is religious feelings against insult to a person or socio political figure. The gravamen of Section 295A of IPC is the insult to religion or religious beliefs. It protects religion as a system of belief or worship, however it does not protect the leaders of a caste, community of any movement, as such,” the judges said.

The judgment authored by Justice Venegavkar, further reads, “The socio political figure may be admired or followed by several persons but criticism or even crude abuses directed upon such figure, however disrespectful or derogatory it may not by its translate into an insult to a religion or a deliberate attempt to outrage the religious feelings of a 'Class' by attacking their religion. A person may represent a religion in certain ways but he/she does not become 'religion' by such representation.”

The judges said they were satisfied that the FIR at the highest alleged crude abuses aimed at Jarange-Patil who is community leader and more particularly referred in the FIR as “Maratha Yodha” who has been leading the agitation of reservation for Maratha community.

In the entire averments made in the FIR, the judges noted that there was no reference of any insult to any religion or religious beliefs of any class and neither there is any deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. There are absolutely no allegations about disparaging, deity, scripture, rite or theological tenet by the present applicant.

“Abusing or using disrespectful words for a socio political figure even if such person is regarded as a community champion, the same cannot be equated with adherence to a faith. The phrase 'religious feelings' cannot draw similarity with wounded pride or political sentiments,” the bench made it clear in the judgment.

The judges noted that the incident took place in a bar and restaurant and during the course of altercation after consuming alcohol, the applicant hurled abuses against Jarange-Patil.

It was further taken into account that the applicant had forthwith apologised to the informant about the alleged incident, which the bench said, showed absence of intention to inflame communal violence or disturb the public order.

In its 18-page judgment, the judges underscored that the law does protect religious belief from deliberate and strategic spread of false or misleading information or to be abused so as to cause damage in the society thereby affecting societal peace, law and order situation.

“However, it definitely does not create a criminal enclave around political leaders or community icons. However, may be the public following of said leader and however unwittingly the insult may be when measured against politeness, respect and courteous behaviour to hold otherwise or decide differently. Broader meaning if applied to terms used in Section 295A will affect the free speech, encourage unfair use of laws for political gains and turn a small exception into a larger problem,” the judges observed.

While referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court, the bench concluded, “Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India permits curtailment only for specific aids i.e., public order, decency, morality, etc. Thus, only where curtailment bears proximate and reasonable nexus to the mischief, Section 295A of I.P.C survives constitutional scrutiny as it targets deliberate and malicious attacks on religious belief or religion itself. To extend it to every insult of popular leader or a community icon is to convert an exception into the rule and to place the sword of criminal prosecution over the head of every dissenter. Such situation would lead to anarchy, of course no one should use abusive language while dissenting.”

With these observations, the judges quashed the FIR lodged on December 12, 2023 against the applicant, who was abused Jarange after consuming alcohol in a local bar.

Appearance:

Advocate ID Maniyar appeared for the Applicant.

Additional Public Prosecutor GA Kulkarni represented the State.