In a landmark ruling by the Karnataka High Court, chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ inside a mosque does not amount to hurting religious sentiments. The court went on to say that unless the chant is specifically aimed at inciting violence or hatred, it doesn’t violate any of the provisions of the law regarding religious sentiments in India.
Case Background
The case that brought this judgment arose because the chanting of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ inside a mosque had created public outrage and hastened legal proceedings. The petitioners who dared to chant this inside a mosque alleged that they were being persecuted since the Bengali exodus from Senapati sparked unrest between communities on December 19, 2019. Citing a second act of such chanting on December 8, 2018, law enforcement claimed that the defendants were disrupting public peace and hurting the sentiments of people inside the mosque.
The court took a more balanced view on the question, distinguishing between intentional provocation and simple expressions of religious beliefs. The bench observed that chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ could not be dubbed offensive merely on such count unless it is actually proved to have been done with some intention to harm or insult the faith of others. This ruling indicates the fine line balanced by the courts between freedom of speech and the safeguards for religious feelings.
Legal Interpretation
The Karnataka High Court stated that offenses in which religious sentiments are involved are covered under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with any deliberate or malicious act, intending to insult a religion or religious beliefs. The court ruled that mere utterance of a religious slogan cannot amount to an offense under this provision unless mala fides are proved.
The court goes to stress the need for the intent to be considered in cases dealing with religious sentiments. The state must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that such acts of chanting either during communal tension or with the intent of inciting communal tension or religious hatred constitute the justification for any charge against the offender.
Public Reaction and Political Response
The ruling has evoked mixed reactions from various communities. Some have received the ruling with gladness, contending that it was meant to safeguard freedom of expression. However, others, especially from the minority religious groups, voiced their concerns about the feasibility of further tension brewing on grounds of precedent set by such behavioral acts.
On the political front, the parties opposing the ruling have raised their voices. The Leader of the Opposition in Karnataka said that this ruling could encourage provocative acts, leading to communal discord. There was a concern such that it creates the atmosphere where one could be jailed for an inappropriate act of expressing one’s religion.
More than a nutshell, the Karnataka HC has reiterated a principle deeply set in Indian law: the separation of religious sentiment from freedom of expression. While considering the aspect of intent behind the chanting, the court has laid down a nuanced interpretation which may serve as a foundation for the future legal handling of religious disputes. This judgment clarifies the permissible limits of religious expression, as the secular courts should base their investigation on deliberate intent for initiating any legal action rather than scepticism or generalised fears.
