Depicting Hindu Gods Disrespectfully Can't Be Justified: Madras High Court Sets Aside Order Closing Case Over FB Post On Lord Krishna

Justice K Murali Shankar added that, considering the respect that was given to the religious symbols and deities, such actions of depicting the Gods should be dealt with sensitively. The court added that the Government should ensure that freedom of expression does not hurt the religious feelings of the people. In doing so, the court set aside the trial court order closing the case.

“Depicting Hindu Gods in a disrespectful manner, intentionally hurting the sentiments of millions, cannot be justified. Such actions have the potential to spark enmity, religious outrage, social disorder, and undermine communal harmony. Given the deep-rooted respect for religious symbols and deities, disrespect can lead to social unrest and hurt a large section of society. Therefore, it is crucial to approach such depictions with sensitivity. The Government must ensure that freedom of expression does not translate into hurting religious feelings,” the court said.

The court thus criticised a Magistrate court for mechanically closing a complaint against a Face Book post, which had allegedly made derogatory comments against Lord Krishna. The court said that the police handled the case casually, despite it having the potential to cause unrest. The court thus directed the police to continue investigating the case and file a final report within 3 months.

The court was dealing with a petition filed by P Paramasivan challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi in which the Magistrate had accepted the final report of the police closing the case as undetected.

Paramasivam had lodged a complaint alleging that one Sathish Kumar had posted a photo on Face Book of some girls taking a bath at a pool and Lord Krishna seeing it from the top of a nearby tree. Along with the photo, Kumar had also commented that people were celebrating someone who stole the clothes of girls. Paramasivam had submitted that he was deeply hurt by the misrepresented photo, which caused him mental anguish.

Paramasivam had contended that Kumar had posted the photo and comment with an intention of defaming the Hindu Gods and damaging the image of Hindu women and potentially creating a law and order problem. It was also submitted that the post was promoting enmity between different groups on religious ground.

Based on Paramasivam's complaint, a case was registered against unknown persons for alleged offences under Sections 298, 504, 505(2) I.P.C., and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. A final report was later filed before the concerned court as undetected. It was contended that the Magistrate took the final report on file, despite objections by Paramasivam.

The Government Advocate submitted that the police had sent requisition letters to Facebook authorities to gather details of the account, but the same was not furnished, and Meta, in turn, said that a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request or a letter rotary was required for producing the information sought for.

The court noted that the investigating authority had not taken any steps to get information about the accounts and had proceeded to close the case when Meta refused to furnish the details as sought for. The court added that the authorities had not pursued the investigation diligently and had filed the final report mechanically.

The court agreed with Paramasivam's submission that though the police had filed the final report as undetected, it would not terminate the investigation and it could only be considered as an interim report, as per a full bench decision of the Madras High Court in Chinnathambi @ Subramani Vs. State.

The court also noted that the Magistrate had proceeded to close the case without considering the objections raised by Paramasivam against the final report. The court also noted that the Magistrate had neither referred nor considered the objections raised by Paramasivam, and thus, the order of the Magistrate accepting the final report was not legally sustainable.

Thus, the court allowed the plea and set aside the order of the Magistrate, closing the case. The court directed the police to proceed with the investigation and file a final report within 3 months.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Saravanan

Counsel for Respondent: Mrs. M. Aasha Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: P Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 269

Case No: Crl. R. C.(MD)No.526 of 2025