The Allahabad High Court has ruled that tearing pages from the Manusmriti during a live TV debate is a prima facie cognizable offense. The court denied relief to Priyanka Bharti, a Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) spokesperson and a Ph.D. student at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), by refusing to quash an FIR lodged against her.
Legal Charges Against Priyanka Bharti
Bharti was charged under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for tearing pages of Manusmriti while participating in a live TV debate hosted by India TV and TV9 Bharatvarsh.
She sought to quash the FIR, arguing that she had no intent to hurt religious sentiments and that her actions did not disturb public order.
Court’s Interpretation of Section 299 BNS
Her legal counsel, Advocate Syed Abid Ali Naqvi, contended that insults to religion that occur unintentionally or carelessly do not fall under Section 295-A IPC, which was later replaced by Section 299 BNS.
As per Section 299 BNS, any deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious sentiments is a cognizable and non-bailable offense, carrying a jail term of up to three years.
Court’s Reference to Supreme Court Judgments
The division bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta relied on various Supreme Court rulings to interpret the case, including:
- Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar & Another
- Ramji Lal Modi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Amish Devgan vs. Union of India & Others
In the Amish Devgan case, the Supreme Court ruled that public figures and media personalities must be careful with their words and actions due to their influence over public sentiment. The court highlighted paragraphs 65 and 76 of the ruling, stating:
"Speeches and acts by influential individuals, such as politicians and media figures, carry significant credibility and impact compared to ordinary people. Their words should not incite hatred or violence." — Supreme Court (Para 65)
Read Also:- Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Ranveer Allahabadia’s Show With Conditions on Decency And Morality
The ruling further emphasized that:
"Public figures have a duty to be responsible because of their reach and influence. They must exercise caution, considering the potential impact of their actions and words." — Supreme Court (Para 76)
Court’s Observation on the Act
Taking these precedents into account, the Allahabad High Court observed that Manusmriti is regarded as a sacred text by a section of society. The bench remarked:
"The act of tearing pages from Manusmriti on a public platform, especially as a spokesperson of a political party, reflects a prima facie deliberate and malicious intent. Such actions cannot be justified as ignorance."
The court stated that Bharti, being a highly educated individual and a political spokesperson, was fully aware of the consequences of her actions.
Given the prima facie evidence of a cognizable offense, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the FIR, dismissing Priyanka Bharti’s petition.
