OTT Fame Shalini Passi Moves Orissa High Court To Quash Criminal Case For Posting Jagannath Temple's Inner Premise Photo

Reality television personality and art collector Shalini Passi has filed a petition before the Orissa High Court seeking to quash the cognizance order and the impending criminal proceeding registered against her for capturing photo of Lord Jagannath temple's inner premise and posting the same through her Instagram handle.

As per the prosecution allegations, an FIR was registered under Section 295A of the IPC, Section 30 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 ('the 1958 Act') and Section 60 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('the IT Act') against the petitioner for allegedly taking photographs within the Lord Jagannath temple premises and uploading them on her Instagram account in 2021.

It is averred in her petition that she became aware of an FIR against her from some media reports and subsequently removed the posted photo from the social media handle. Subsequently, unknown to her, a charge-sheet was submitted in the case and the SDJM, Puri took cognizance against her on 08.06.2021 for the aforementioned charges, while refusing to take cognizance under Section 30A(4)(c) of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, specifically because the mandatory statutory sanction under Section 30(C) thereof had not been obtained.

It is the case of Passi that she was completely unaware of the pendency of a criminal case against her for the last five years and only came to know about it in June, 2026 when the Regional Passport Office raised an objection during passport renewal on the basis of a pending criminal case.

Upon obtaining the certified copies of the trial court record, the petitioner discovered for the first time that cognizance had been taken and summons had been issued without ever being served upon her. Thereafter, she approached the trial Court seeking a 'no-objection certificate' for renewal of passport, which was granted in July this year.

She has impugned the cognizance order on the ground that cognizance under Section 295A IPC has been taken without obtaining the mandatory previous sanction of the Central or State Government under Section 196(1) CrPC. Secondly, neither the FIR nor the chargesheet contains any allegation of deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of any class, which is an indispensable ingredient of the offence under Section 295A IPC.

Further, she has averred, there is no allegation whatsoever attracting Section 30 of the 1958 Act. Also, as per her contention, Section 60 of the IT Act is merely a limitation provision and does not create any offence, making its invocation wholly misconceived. She has also challenged the impugned order as it is a “non-speaking one”.

The petition, which has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, has been placed before the Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, who took up the case on July 27. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that even accepting the allegations on their face value, no offence is made out under the alleged provisions. He further submitted that some of the Sections were added by the police which are not applicable to the alleged acts in the FIR.

The State Counsel sought time for obtaining instructions and accordingly, he was granted four weeks. The case has now been posted to 07.09.2026 for further hearing.

Case Title: Shalini Passi v. State of Odisha

Case No: CRLMC No. 2348 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate along with Mr. A.N. Das, Senior Advocate assisted by M/s. Rishi Agrawala Bishwajit Ranjan Tripathy, Sanjivani Pattajoshi & Nirvikar Singh, Advocates

Counsel for the State: Mr. C.M. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel

Click Here To Read/Download Order