P&H High Court refuses to set aside annulment report

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash the cancellation report filed by the Punjab Police in a case under Section 295-A of the IPC, alleging that singer Gurdas Maan had offended the religious sentiments of the Sikh masses.

This provision provides for punishment for wilful and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

Gurdas Maan, while performing in one of the programs, was quoted as saying that Laddi Shah was the descendant of the third Sikh Guru, Sri Guru Amar Dass.

Judge Sandeep Moudgil was of the opinion,

“There is no iota of evidence to directly or indirectly suggest that the accused Gurdas Maan forced any person or group of a particular community at large, forcing them to accept Laddi Shah as a descendant of Shri Guru Amar Das ji. ..It will be purely a matter of the individual’s conviction whether or not to accept his claim.…This Court is also cautious about sensitivity but at the same time must look at things rationally.“

The Court stated that freedom of expression must be protected because it allows for individual autonomy, respect and well-being through self-expression. Thus, to prosecute a person for the said offense, “The intentional insult must be of such a degree that it would incite a person to disturb the public peace or to commit any other offence.”

The court said that the mere fact that the accused made “religiously compromised” remarks was not sufficient to order the magistrate to take cognizance of them.

The Secy ruling. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal (1995) was invoked in which ““The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of the fundamental right of speech and expression to include the right to educate, inform and entertain, as well as the right to be educated, informed and entertained. »

Justice Moudgil noted that the trial court has categorically rendered a finding that after reading the USB drive containing the video footage of Gurdas Maan and even the Punjabi transcription thereof, it cannot be said that the accused Gurdas Mann committed a malicious act, intentionally and deliberately, to outrage the religious feelings and emotions of the petitioner or any section of the community to the extent that the key ingredient of “intent” is missing, this which can be inferred from the circumstances and the behavior of the accused.

She also noted that the accused singer apologized and the transcript of his apology was also placed on record.

Thus, the High Court agreed with the trial court’s decision to accept the annulment report. It said, “Even otherwise, preaching and believing any religion is subjective to its followers or teachers and no such malicious act, intentionally and deliberately, is established on examination of the report submitted by the investigating agency and upon careful and clinical examination of the documents available to it which could be taken to say that the act of the accused Gurdas Maan is sufficient to scandalize the religious sentiments of any other class or community at large“.

Mr. Ramandeep Singh Gill, Advocate and

Mr. Jatin Bansal Kotshamir, counsel for the petitioners

Mr. ADS Sukhija, Addl. AG Punjab and Mr JS Rattu, DAG Punjab

Harjinder Singh @ Jinda & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

LiveLaw Course (PH) 231 2024