The Karnataka High Court observed that there no fundamental right is conferred on any religion to degrade other religions.
While professing any religion, the religious heads or professing by any person should not degrade other religion, Justice HP Sandesh observed while refusing to quash a criminal complaint alleging degradation of religion by the accused.
One woman had filed a complaint that the accused came to her residence and degraded other religions stating that neither Bhagavad-Gita nor Quran will provide any peace of mind or comes to any rescue of any person except Yesu Christa. The accused approached the High Court seeking to quash the order taking cognizance of the complaint. The accused contended that the same violates Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India
While considering the petition, the court noted that there are specific allegations against the accused that they have degraded the other religion.
"While professing any religion, the religious heads or professing by any person should not degrade other religion. Having perused the complaint averments and also the statements of the witnesses, it is specific that while propagating they specifically mentioned that other religious scripts does not say anything about anticipation of tsunami and only Yesu Christa can protect them. When such allegations are made in the complaint, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences invoked against the petitioners does not attract the ingredients of Section 298 of IPC cannot be accepted. No doubt, while setting the law in motion invoked Section 295(A) of IPC regarding deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs and after the investigation, the Investigating Officer invoked Section 298 of IPC uttering, words, etc. with deliberate intention to wound the religious feelings of any person. Having taken note of the complaint averments and also the statement of witnesses, with deliberate intention to wound the religious feelings of other religion words are uttered while propogating. When such being the facts of the case, it attracts Section 298 of IPC. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the charges levelled against the petitioners does not attract Section 298 of IPC and issue of process against the petitioners would vitiates Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India, cannot be accepted.", the court observed while dismissing the petition.
Case name: Precilla D'Souza vs State Of Karnataka