Tearing Pages of a Religious Book in a Live Debate is a Prima Facie Malicious Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash FIR

A Person of Influence Must Exercise Caution in Their Actions - In a significant ruling Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking the quashing of an FIR filed under Section 299 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) against Priyanka Bharti, a political spokesperson. The petitioner was accused of tearing pages of the Manusmriti during a live television debate, which led to allegations of deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held that the act was prima facie intentional and malicious, rejecting the petitioner’s contention that it was a mere political expression. The Court ruled, "The act of tearing pages of the 'Manusmriti' in a live TV debate is a clear-cut visible act reflecting a deliberate and malicious intention, done without lawful excuse or just cause."

The controversy arose when Priyanka Bharti, a spokesperson for the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), participated in a live debate on India TV and TV9 Bharatvarsh. During the heated discussion, she allegedly tore pages of the Manusmriti, which led to a major public outcry. The FIR (Crime No. 518 of 2024) was registered on December 29, 2024, under Section 299 BNS at Roravar Police Station, District Aligarh.

In her defense, the petitioner denied any deliberate or malicious intent, arguing that her actions were part of a political statement and did not amount to an offense under Section 299 BNS. She relied on Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017) 7 SCC 760, where the Supreme Court held that unintentional or careless insults to religion do not attract penal provisions.

The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Amit Sinha, opposed the plea, asserting that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense and should not be quashed at this stage.

The Allahabad High Court, after a detailed examination of Section 299 BNS, held that the act of tearing pages of a religious book on live television was sufficient to attract penal provisions. The Court emphasized that public acts of religious desecration, especially by influential individuals, have the potential to incite unrest and disturb public order.

"Intent and Context Matter in Hate Speech Cases": Court Cites Supreme Court Precedents
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1, the Court observed that:

"Persons of influence, including political leaders and media figures, have a heightened duty of responsibility. Their statements and actions must be assessed not only for intent but also for the impact they create on the public."

The Court further noted that speech or actions that insult religious beliefs must be evaluated in their specific context, highlighting that deliberate and malicious intent is the key factor in invoking Section 299 BNS.

Rejecting the petitioner’s defense, the Court held: "The petitioner, being a highly educated individual and a political spokesperson, cannot claim ignorance. The act was not an accidental slip but a calculated act during a nationally televised debate, amplifying its potential to cause outrage."

"Freedom of Speech is Not Absolute": Court Upholds Validity of Section 299 BNS
Referring to the landmark judgment in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620, the Court reiterated that:

"Freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. Section 299 BNS, like its predecessor Section 295-A IPC, is designed to prevent actions that have the tendency to incite communal discord."

The Court also cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, to hold that an FIR should not be quashed when it discloses a prima facie cognizable offense.

"Tearing a Religious Book on Live TV Cannot Be Equated to Mere Political Expression": High Court Rejects Petitioner’s Argument
Addressing the petitioner’s claim that her actions were a form of political protest and should be protected under free speech, the Court distinguished between permissible criticism and actions that amount to religious provocation. It held: "Criticism of religious texts is one thing, but a public display of desecration is another. The latter crosses the line into deliberate provocation and cannot be shielded under the guise of political expression."

The Court also rejected the analogy drawn with Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s case, pointing out that his case involved an indirect depiction of a religious figure, whereas the present case involved a direct act of desecration.

Dismissing the petition, the Court made it clear that it would not interfere under Article 226 when a cognizable offense was prima facie made out. The judgment concluded:

"The petitioner’s act of tearing pages of the 'Manusmriti' during a live televised debate is prima facie a deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings. No case is made out for quashing the FIR at this stage."

With this ruling, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed the principle that public figures must exercise caution and responsibility in their statements and actions, especially in matters concerning religious sentiments.
 

Date of Decision: 28/02/2025