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

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 गंवार सूद्र पसु नारी, सकल ताड़ना के अधिकारी', the Ocean is saying to Shri Ramchandra ji that he is a dull person and for this reason, he is apologizing for the mistake committed by him. In such a situation, when a statement made by a character who considers himself an idiot, is presented without reference to all the relevant facts, it cannot be called a true distortion of the truth.”

In addition to this, the Court, while explaining the above Chaupayi, observed that some scholars have interpreted that the meaning of the word 'ताड़न' here is to teach or teach and the true meaning of Chaupai is that all the characters mentioned in it are also entitled to learn (education).

Regarding the second chaupayi, the Court said that the scholars have held different opinions regarding the second controversial couplet "पूजिअ बिप्र सील गुन हीना, सूद्र न गुन गन ज्ञान प्रवीना।", especially regarding the meaning of Vipra.

The Court said:

“…some scholars believe that Vipra means such persons those who have knowledge of Brahma and it does not indicate people born in any particular caste.”

Consequently, opining that Maurya's opinion may differ from this, because it is true that the applicant, like other people, has the right to do an independent review of Ramcharitmanas, however, independent review or healthy criticism does not mean that such words should be used to motivate people to commit crimes.

With this, the Court, finding a prima facie case against him, refused to allow his plea to quash criminal proceedings.