Gurdas Maan case: Mere utterance of religiously sensitive remarks doesn’t warrant action, says High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 7

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that mere utterance of religiously sensitive remarks, without evidence of intentional insult, does not automatically warrant legal action. Justice Sandeep Moudgil also clarified that there must be a deliberate act or conduct intended to insult for an offence to be constituted.

The assertion came just over a month after Justice Moudgil’s Bench issued notice of motion to Punjabi singer Gurdas Maan, who was facing the allegations of hurting religious sentiments under Section 295-A of the IPC. The Bench was, at that time, told that an FIR with allegations under Section 295-A was registered on August 26, 2021, at the Nakodar city police station.

The petitioner’s stand in the matter was that the assertions, hurting the sentiments of a community, by and large revolved around a video which went viral, wherein Maan passed a statement that Laddi Shah was a descendant of Guru Amar Dass. The statement was factually and historically incorrect.

“One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused hurled such religiously-compromised expressions to directly hurt the sentiments of the Sikh community, as such, is not sufficient by itself for this court to direct the magistrate to take cognisance of the same,” Justice Moudgil asserted.

The Bench added there was a thin distinction between religion and religious belief. So far, no interpretation was available “except to understand that religious belief is a matter of subjective acceptance as the same may be believed by one individual but not by the others”.

Referring to a verse, Justice Moudgil asserted its bare reading clearly demonstrates that Sri Guru Granth Sahib was to be considered as Guru by the Sikhs or followers of Sikh religion. “But it is not in so many terms restricting the belief only to accept Sri Guru Granth Sahib alone as their Guru. In such circumstance, the religious belief would weigh more in the mind, which is a matter of subjective acceptance”.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Moudgil among other things asserted: “In this context if the act of the accused (Gurdas Maan) is looked at and contested, it could not be established that the said person is forcing any person or a group of persons or a community as a whole imposing upon them to accept him to be a Guru or a reincarnation of Guru Amar Dass and in that eventuality, it will be purely a matter of individual’s belief to accept his claim or not.”