Ramcharitmanas Row| 'Remarks Prima Facie Provoked People To Incite Riots': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To UP MLC Swami Prasad Maurya

The Allahabad High Court last week REJECTED UP MLC and Samajwadi Party Leader Swami Prasad Maurya's plea to quash entire criminal proceedings in the case lodged against him for his alleged controversial remark over Hindu epic Ramcharitmanas. Observing that healthy criticism does not mean that such words are used that prompt people to commit crimes, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted thus: "It prima facie appears that due to the (alleged) statement, some other leaders across India unanimously agreed to burn copies of Shri Ramcharitmanas and they used foul language against Hindu society, due to which, unrest was created in the public mind and a feeling of hostility and animosity arose among various sections of the Hindu religion." (emphasis supplied) The Court was also of the view that the statements made in any sacred text should be read and kept in the right perspective only as placing any part of the text from anywhere, without surrounding relevant facts, can also be a false statement.#AllahabadHighCourt REJECTS UP MLC and Samajwadi Party Leader Swami Prasad Maurya's (@SwamiPMaurya) plea to quash entire criminal proceedings in the case lodged against him for his alleged controversial remark on Hindu epic #Ramcharitmanas. pic.twitter.com/Z5wmd4VUv8— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 6, 2023 The case against Maurya Former UP Minister, Maurya has been accused of making a statement that certain chaupayi of the Ramcharitmanas insult a large section of society and thus, they should be banned. Allegedly, he also said that the sacred text of the Hindus (Ramcharitmanas) was written by Tulsidas for self-praise wherein he abused Dalits, tribals, and backwards by naming their castes and calling them shudra. In essence, Maurya had allegedly objected to the following two chaupayis of Ramcharitmanas for being against women, Dalits, tribals and backward-class people: "ढोल गंवार सूद्र पसु नारी, सकल ताड़ना के अधिकारी" "पूजिअ बिप्र सील गुन हीना, सूद्र न गुन गन ज्ञान प्रवीना।” Interpreting these chaupayis, Maurya had alleged said that in the first verse, the author of Ramcharitmanas (Tulsidas) meant that 'drum, idiot, sudra, animal and women deserve beating' and in the second verse, he meant that 'no matter how knowledgeable and proficient a Shudra is, he can be respectable, but not worshipable'. Following his remark, an FIR against him was lodged under Sections 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence), 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 298 (Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person), and 505 (2) (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In the FIR, it was alleged that following his remarks, some other leaders across India unanimously agreed to burn copies of the Ramcharitmanas, abused, used derogatory and used indecent words towards all Manas lovers, due to which an atmosphere of anger and unrest was created in the public mind and a feeling of hostility and animosity was also created among various sections of the Hindu religion. Before the High Court, challenging entire criminal proceedings including the chargesheet and the Court's Cognizance order, Maurya contended that the alleged statements attributed to him were not his statement and that he had merely quoted the verses from Shri Ram Charit Manas. It was also argued that being a citizen of India, he has a fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(A) of the Constitution and the said remarks were made in exercise of his fundamental right to speech and expression. Lastly, it was contended that a sanction for prosecution against the applicant had not been given by the Central Government, the State Government or the District Magistrate and in such a situation, as per the provisions of Section 196 CrPC, no court can take cognizance of any offence under Section 505 IPC. Court's observations At the outset, the Court observed that though Article 19 of the Indian Constitution provides for the Fundamental right to free speech, however, this right comes with reasonable restrictions as this right does not give any person the right to commit any act which may amount to a punishable offence. In this regard, the Court noted that prima facie, Maurya's alleged statements had provoked people to incite riots and due to his remarks, copies of Shri Ramcharitmanas, which is considered a holy book by a large section of the Hindus, were burnt. Importantly, the Court also referred to the impugned verses of the Ramcharitmanas, which were objected to by Maurya, in an attempt to explain their real meaning. The Court said: “In the chaupayi referred to by the applicant 'ढोल...

Ramcharitmanas Row| 'Remarks Prima Facie Provoked People To Incite Riots': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To UP MLC Swami Prasad Maurya

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Ramcharitmanas Row| 'Remarks Prima Facie Provoked People To Incite Riots': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To UP MLC Swami Prasad Maurya

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers