The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Section 295-A IPC against the director, producer and lead actor of the film "Yaarian 2" over a song depicting a non-Amritdhari (unbaptised) actor wearing the Kirpan, holding that inadvertent artistic portrayal, without deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, does not attract the offence.

Justice Shalini Nagpal said,

"picturization of a song showing a non- Amritdhari Sikh wearing a 'Sri Sahib/Kirpan' cannot be termed as an insult to the Sikh religion. The song picturized in a movie is an expression of creative liberty, artistic instinct and the inadvertent portrayal of Sri Sikh Sahib, one of the 5 religious 'Kakaars' of the Sikh religion, cannot be construed as a deliberate, malicious act intended to hurt the religious feelings of the complainant or other members of the religious community. The act attributed cannot be regarded by an ordinary prudent mind as grossly offensive or provocative."

The FIR was registered on a complaint by Harpreet Singh alleging that T-Series had released a song from the film "Yaarian 2" on YouTube in which a clean-shaven actor, Neezaan Jafri, was shown wearing the Sri Sahib against Sikh customs, since, per the complaint, only an Amritdhari person is permitted to wear this article of faith.

The complainant alleged this was done deliberately by the director (Radhika Rao), co-director (Vinay Sapru) and producer (Bhushan Kumar) to hurt Sikh religious sentiments, and sought legal action under Section 295-A IPC.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that an identical FIR had already been registered at Amritsar over the same song and allegations, rendering the present prosecution unsustainable as a second FIR on the same facts.

It was further argued that the ingredients of Section 295-A IPC were absent since there was no deliberate or malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, the portrayal stemmed at most from lack of knowledge of religious customs, fell within the ambit of artistic and creative expression, and the objectionable visuals had already been removed with a public apology issued and assurance against repetition.

The State opposed quashing, arguing that the depiction, a clean-shaven actor wearing Sri Sahib without a turban, contrary to Sikh custom, had hurt the complainant's and the Sikh community's religious feelings, that the petitioners as director, producer and actor were responsible, and that the FIR could not be quashed while investigation was still pending.

The Court first addressed the "second FIR" argument, clarifying that the present FIR (registered 30.08.2023) actually preceded the Amritsar FIR (registered 31.08.2023, and separately quashed by the same Court on 28.10.2024 in CRM-M-57708-2023) — meaning it was the first, not a repeat, FIR, so the bar on successive FIRs did not assist the petitioners.

Turning to merits, the Court set out the three ingredients of Section 295-A IPC: (i) insult or attempted insult to the religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens; (ii) with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings; and (iii) by words, signs, visible representation or otherwise. Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957), that the provision punishes only "aggravated" insults perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intent, not those "offered unwittingly or carelessly" and its reaffirmation in M.S. Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017), the Court held that mens rea is an essential and indispensable element of the offence.

The Court further relied on Priya Prakash Varrier v. State of Telangana (2018), where a similar FIR over the picturisation of a traditional Muslim song was quashed on the ground that a mere "wink" did not evidence any calculated tendency to insult religious sentiments, and on the three-Judge Bench observations in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali (2017), on the constitutionally protected space of artistic license in cinematic storytelling.

The Court also noted that a grievance voiced by one individual could not be equated with the sentiment of the entire Sikh community, and took into account that the petitioners had already removed the objectionable visuals and issued a public apology with an assurance against repetition, finding the case squarely fell within Category (1) of the Bhajan Lal guidelines, where allegations, even accepted in their entirety, do not disclose commission of any offence.

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed FIR registered under Section 295-A IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners.

Mr. Tajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG Punjab.

Title: RADHIKA RAO AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Click here to read order