MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi's Speech Prima Facie Meant To Mock Lord Ram, Hurt Religious Sentiments: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Case

The Bombay High Court while refusing to quash the proceedings initiated against All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Akbaruddin Owaisi for allegedly making objectionable comments against Lord Ram and his mother, observed that 'constitutional tolerance' cannot be misconstrued as a licence to intentionally insult the religious feelings of a community. 

Single-judge Justice Ravindra Joshi said that Lord Ram is worshipped in our country and thus, the statements made by Owaisi, an MLA from Telangana, in his 2011 election speech in Maharashtra's Nanded, would hurt the religious sentiments of the persons, who believe in the god. 

"During the speech he wrecked up issue with regard to the decision of Allahabad High court in Ram Janmabhoomi case. In the initial part of the speech, as it appears from its text, references were made with regard to the issues involved in the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court and also about various claims made by different persons at different places with regard to the birth place of Lord Shriram. The Applicant, however, then referred certain statements, which this Court does not wish to record in this order in order to avoid unwanted publicity thereto, prima facie indicates intention to mock the religious figures; Lord Shirram and his mother. Even otherwise, any such statement would be derogating to any woman and her child. In case, when such statement is made in respect of Lord Shriram, who is worshiped in this country, on the face of it, it would wound and hurt religious sentiments/feelings of the class of persons who are his believers/followers," Justice Joshi held. 

The judge in his August 6 order, opined that any prudent/reasonable person, leave apart, a MLA, who is supposed to be more responsible than citizens, would not make any such statement fully knowing the fact that he is likely to hurt religious feelings of any person or class of persons. The judge further said that the statements appear to be made in a "planned and pre- determined manner."

"On the face of it, there is nothing to indicate that it was made hurriedly or carelessly, on the contrary, it appears to be a measured statement. Apart from the fact that the manner and the tone in which those statements are made, the statements themselves are sufficient to outrage the religious beliefs of a class of people. Pertinently, those statements do not take the issues and objections raised before Allahabad High Court in the proceeding of Ram Janmabhoomi any forward. They are in form of mocking and apparently not instantaneous and, therefore, prima facie, there is substance in the complaint made by the complainant with regard to his religious feelings being outraged by the statements made by the Applicant," the judge said.

The judge further made it clear that the freedom of speech is not an unfettered right of any individual and it is always subject to the reasonable restrictions. He further pointed out that the constitutional validity of provisions of Section 295A have been upheld by the Supreme Court, which indicated that no one is permitted to outrage/insult the religious feelings of any class of persons and once it is found that such act is neither unwitting nor careless or without any deliberate or malicious intention of outraging the feelings, invocation of provisions of Section 295A against such person would be justified.

"In such cases it could not be said that such person is required to undergo unnecessary rigours of the trial. Undeniably, constitutional structure promotes tolerance and values like liberty, fraternity. However, tolerance cannot be misconstrued/ misunderstood to there being a license to intentionally hurt the religious feelings of others," Justice Joshi made it clear. 

In his detailed order, Justice Joshi noted that the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of religion which includes right of a person to practice his religion, freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

"It is open for the citizens to follow a religion of their choice which would obviously include right of not to follow any religion. Even an Atheist denying existence of God or a non believer is permitted to have his own opinion and it may not be treated as hurting religious sentiments of others. However, at the same time, he cannot be allowed to disrespect any religion and hurt the beliefs of the persons following such religion," the judge said. 

Often, religious feelings are nothing but faith, practices and value which are embedded into the minds of the people based upon the beliefs, holy scriptures and the history, the judge said, further adding that once the same is accepted, it is not necessary that every belief must pass the test of rationality or scientific proof. 

The bench also dismissed Owaisi's contention that the speech was made in December 2011 and the complainant had lodged a complaint in January 2013 and the Magistrate issued process against him in November 2021. The judge said that the issue of Magistrate exercising jurisdiction beyond the limitation period, could be decided at a later stage. 

The judge also raised concerns over the availability of the very objectionable speech even today on YouTube despite the Magistrate Court taking cognisance of the same and issuing process against Owaisi. 

"If it is true that the speech of the Applicant (Owaisi) is available on YouTube inspite of the fact that the competent Court has taken cognisance of the charge-sheet against the Applicant and has issued process against him, it is a matter of serious concern. Needless to say that once cognisance is taken by the competent Court in respect of the contents of any speech, its availability on the public platform would only lead to perpetuating and continuation with the insult of the religious feelings of a class of persons of which cognisance has already been taken. This Court for want of appropriate parties to the present proceeding, is unable to issue any direction. However, it hopes and trusts that the Government would take appropriate steps in that regard forthwith," the judge ordered. 

With these observations, the bench disposed of the plea. 

Appearance: 

Advocates NS Ghanekar and SS Subhedar appeared for Owaisi.

Additional Public Prosecutor RP Gour represented the State.

Case Title: Akbaruddin Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 1920 of 2022)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 408

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment