FIR Filed for Allegedly Insulting Religious Sentiments Through Film Poster Dismissed; Court Cites Lack of Malicious Intent and CBFC Certification
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a notable judgment, has quashed an FIR registered against actor Rajkumar Rao and other filmmakers associated with the film "Behen Hogi Teri." The FIR, which was filed based on a complaint by Ishant Sharma, accused the filmmakers of insulting religious sentiments through a promotional poster. The complaint alleged that the poster depicted Rajkumar Rao in a manner resembling Lord Shiva, which was claimed to be disrespectful to Hindu sentiments.
Justice H.S. Grewal, presiding over the case, highlighted that the essential ingredients necessary for constituting offenses under Sections 295-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), as well as Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, were not made out. The Court noted that the film had been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), a statutory body under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which had already reviewed and approved the film for public exhibition.
The court emphasized that the CBFC's certification carries significant legal sanctity, ensuring compliance with guidelines on public decency and morality. The judgment elaborated that the mere objection or protest by individuals does not establish a deliberate and malicious intention to insult religious sentiments, which is a crucial element for prosecution under Section 295-A IPC.
The Court also addressed the allegations under Section 67 of the IT Act, stating that the poster lacked elements of obscenity, lasciviousness, or moral depravity, thereby not attracting the provision. The Court reiterated that artistic and creative expressions, once certified by statutory bodies, cannot be prosecuted unless the statutory ingredients of the alleged offenses are clearly established.
In its analysis, the Court referred to several precedents, including the judgments in "Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP" and "Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar," underscoring the high threshold required for establishing offenses under Section 295-A IPC. The judgment further noted that the allegations, even if taken at face value, failed to disclose any cognizable offense, thus justifying the quashing of the FIR to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
The decision underscores the judiciary's role in protecting artistic freedom while balancing it against the need to prevent the misuse of legal provisions intended to protect religious sentiments. The ruling is seen as a significant step in reaffirming the legal protections available to filmmakers and artists against unwarranted legal actions based solely on differing perceptions of creative works.
Bottom line:-
FIR alleging insult to religious sentiments through a film's promotional poster quashed, as essential ingredients of offenses under Sections 295-A, 120-B IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act were not made out, and the film was certified by CBFC, ensuring compliance with public decency and morality.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 295-A and 120-B IPC, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 482 Cr.P.C., Cinematograph Act, 1952, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
