'Ya Allah! Rasgulla!' Remark Without Malicious Intent Doesn't Insult Religion: Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against Bharati Singh, Shekhar Suman

Mere use of food items in a comic act cannot amount to insult to religion, the Bombay High Court said on Wednesday (April 29) while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged in 2010 against comedian Bharati Singh and actor Shekhar Suman, for uttering the words 'Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!'

Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar made it clear that criminal law should not be 'casually' invoked against artists and quashed the FIR lodged under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises 'deliberate and malicious act for outraging religious sentiments.'

"I am also mindful of the fact that criminal law should not be invoked in a casual manner against an artist or a programme judge merely because somebody feels insulted by a performance viewed out of context. There must be deliberate targeting of religious feeling. There must be malicious object. There must be sufficient material to connect the petitioner with that object. On the present record, the connection is missing," Justice Borkar observed. 

The instant FIR, Justice Borkar noted alleged that during the episode telecast on Sony Entertainment Television (SET) on September 4, 2010 on the then popular show 'Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo' Bharati Singh was a performing artist and Shekhar Suman was the judge of the show. The court noted that during the episode, Singh, who was playing the role of 'Umrao Jaan' had uttered the words 'Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!' as per the show's script in a comic way only to create laughter.

However, Mohd. Imran Dadani Rasabi, the then President of Raza Academy took objection to the same and lodged the FIR. The judge, however, found no malicious intention or deliberate act on part of Singh or Suman to outrage the religious feelings. 

"I do not find any material showing such deliberate or malicious intention on the part of either Petitioner. The performance appears to have been made in a theatrical manner, with the object of entertainment. That does not by itself create criminality. The words which are said to be objectionable are 'Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!' The Petitioners say that these are only words used in rhyme and comic effect. The submission is that 'Dahi Bhalla and Rasgulla' are common food items, known and consumed by people across communities, and there is no religious colour in those expressions. This contention cannot be brushed aside. The words by themselves are neutral in ordinary social use. Mere mention of food items in a comic act cannot amount to insult of religion. Something more is required. There must be material to show that the words were selected as a weapon of offence," Justice Borkar held. 

Even if the complaint is taken at its face value, the judge said, the material does not show a intention to outrage the religious feelings of any class.

"At the highest, it suggests that some viewers may have felt offended by the style of expression used in the performance. But offence felt by a section of viewers is not enough in law unless the mental element is also disclosed," Justice Borkar opined. 

In his detailed order, the judge explained that the background of the programme which was aired on TV, also assumes importance. The judge noted that the show was telecast as a family entertainment programme and had been running for a considerable time.

"The Petitioners say that the performers and judges in such programme are meant to create laughter. I find this to be a relevant surrounding circumstance. A judge in a comedy show does not stand in the position of a speaker making a declaration against a religious group. A performing artist on such stage also performs according to the script of the episode. The record does not disclose that the Petitioner Judges personally authored the expressions. The role attributed to them is too remote to bring them within the purview of offences alleged by the complainant," Justice Borkar ruled. 

With these observations, the bench quashed the FIR lodged way back in September 2010. 

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Niteen Pradhan assisted by Advocate PD Desai appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Megha Bajoria represented the State.

Case Title: Shekhar Suman vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 1902 of 2012)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 226

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment