Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Insult To 'Hindutva' Not Religious Insult To Attract Section 295A IPC : Abhinav Chandrachud Argues In Karnataka HC Seeking Quashing Of FIR

Mustafa Plumber
15 Dec 2020 8:56 AM GMT
Insult To Hindutva Not Religious Insult To Attract Section 295A IPC : Abhinav Chandrachud Argues In Karnataka HC Seeking Quashing Of FIR
x

Hindutva is not a religion and insult to it cannot be regarded as a religious insult, submitted Advocate Dr Abhinav Chandrachud before the Karnataka High Court while appearing in a case seeking quashing of FIR.He submitted that 'Hindutva' can be considered to be a philosophy, a way of life, or even predominant ideology of a political party. When somebody insults, even perhaps uses...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Hindutva is not a religion and insult to it cannot be regarded as a religious insult, submitted Advocate Dr Abhinav Chandrachud before the Karnataka High Court while appearing in a case seeking quashing of FIR.

He submitted that 'Hindutva' can be considered to be a philosophy, a way of life, or even predominant ideology of a political party. When somebody insults, even perhaps uses abusive language against 'Hindutva', that is not an insult to a religion but insult to a political philosophy; thus an offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, submitted Dr. Chandrachud.

He made these submissions while seeking to quash two First Information Reports (FIR) registered against a law student, who is booked under section 295-A, 153-A, 143, 149 and 448 of IPC, for allegedly holding an objectionable placard during a protest held against the Citizenship Amendment Act at the Government Arts College, Bengaluru.

Not Relooking 1995 'Hindutva Is A way Of Life' Verdict: SC

As regards the offence under Section 153A IPC, Chandrachud submitted that the law is well settled that there must be two communities involved. In the instant case, there are no two communities involved; mere insult to one community will not attract the offence under Section 153A IPC, he argued.


"No offence under section 153-A and 295-A is made out even if the contents of the FIR are accepted in its entirety", he argued.

Section 153A IPC - Deliberate & Malicious Intent Necessary; 'Disturb Public Tranquility' Does Not Mean Normal Law & Order Issues : Supreme Court

A bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj hearing the case posted the matter for further hearing on December 21, after Dr.Chandrauchd sought a short adjournment to place on record the citations relied by him to argue his case. The prosecution also sought for a short accommodation to respond to the plea.

The FIR was based  on a complaint registered by the Principal of the College who alleged that a few students had unlawfully assembled in the college premises in December 2019 to stage a protest against CAA.

As per the complaint, some individuals were displaying a placard which had  'Fuck Hindutva" written on them. The FIR alleged that this message amounted to promoting enmity between communities and religious insult so as to invoke Sections 153A and 295A IPC.

The petitioner was earlier granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court on Janaury 31, 2020. Later, she approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIRs.

It is argued that FIR constitutes an abuse of process as the petitioner was not present at the site of the protest in question. On December 20, 2019 when the alleged protest took place, she was present at her institute for attending another event which was being organized by her. The petition says that though the principal has named some students who were allegedly holding the placards, the petitioner's name has not been mentioned in the First Information Statement.

The charge under sections 143 and 149 of IPC for violating orders issued under Section 144 of CrPc. It is stated that this 144 order has been struck down as illegal by a division bench of the High Court.


Next Story
Share it