The
Supreme Court (SC) in a February ruling has said calling someone ‘Miyan-Tiyan’
or ‘Pakistani’ does not amount to hurting religious sentiments. It acknowledged
that such words are in poor taste but not a crime. The top court noted that
there was no assault and discharged the accused, Hari Nandan Singh, who had
approached the SC challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s refusal to quash the
case against him.
“Evidently, there was no assault or use of
force by the appellant to attract Section 353 IPC. Therefore, the High Court
ought to have discharged the appellant under Section 353 IPC. The appellant is
accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him
‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani’. 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 be discharged
under Section 298 IPC,” a Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and SC Sharma said
in its February 11, 2025, order.
Not a case of
hurting religious sentiment
According to the prosecution,
Singh had requested information from the Additional Collector-cum-First
Appellate Authority, Bokaro, under the Right to Information Act. Dissatisfied
with the response, he filed an appeal.
In November 2020, when the
complainant, an Urdu translator and acting clerk (Right to Information) at the
Sub-Divisional Office, Chas, a subdivision of the Bokaro district of Jharkhand,
went to deliver the information, the accused allegedly abused him by referring
to his religion and attempted to intimidate and deter him from performing his
official duties.
After an investigation, the
police filed a chargesheet against the accused for offences under IPC Sections
298 (hurting religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult to provoke a breach
of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 353 (assault or force to deter a public
servant), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt). The Magistrate court took
cognisance of the charges and summoned him.
Singh filed an application for discharge, but the Magistrate held that
sufficient material was available on record for framing charges under Sections
353, 298 and 504. However, the Magistrate stated that there was a lack of
evidence for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 406. He then filed a
criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bokaro, who
dismissed it. Thereafter, Singh approached the High Court seeking to quash the
entire criminal proceeding, but in an order dated August 28, 2023, the HC
dismissed his petition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court