The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition against Punjabi singer Gurdas Maan, emphasising that religious sentiments are not so brittle or fragile that they can be outraged or insulted by anyone.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, presiding over the court, made the observation while hearing a plea seeking to overturn previous orders related to a controversial video involving Maan. The court stated “Whatever thinnest distinction can be edged out between the two i.e., religion and religious belief, one thing is common i.e. both are supposed to make life morally worth enduring and are not so brittle or fragile that they can be outraged or insulted by anyone.”
The case revolved around a viral video in which Maan, while performing at a public event, stated that Laddi Shah is a descendant of Sri Guru Amar Dass Ji. This statement, deemed historically and factually incorrect by the petitioners, allegedly hurt the religious sentiments of the Sikh community. Consequently, a complaint was filed under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
The police investigation concluded with a cancellation report, which was accepted by the court on November 29, 2022. The petitioners’ subsequent protest petition was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) of Nakodar on February 22. The petitioners alleged that the investigation was not conducted fairly and that the cancellation report was filed without proper notice to them, suggesting an attempt to protect the accused.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that Maan’s statements were intentional insults to the Sikh Gurus and principles, emphasising that Laddi Shah’s actions, such as consuming intoxicants, contradicted Sikh values. Conversely, the State’s counsel maintained that Maan had apologised for his remarks in a subsequent video, and the trial court found no intent to hurt religious sentiments.
The High Court referenced the essential elements of Section 295-A IPC, which requires deliberate and malicious intent to insult religious beliefs. “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 cognizance of the same,” the court noted.
The court observed that Maan’s statements, while potentially offensive, did not demonstrate the requisite malicious intent. His subsequent apology further indicated a lack of intent to harm. “It cannot be stated that the accused Gurdas Mann has done any malicious act, intentionally and deliberately, to outrage the religious sentiments and feelings of the petitioner or of any class of community inasmuch as the key ingredient of “Intention” is missing which can be gathered from the circumstances and demeanor of the accused,” the court remarked.
The court further underscored that “All religion preach compassion and forgiveness,” quoting verses from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. “It would be belittling the religious belief and reducing its sanctity to even think that they can be insulted,” it emphasised.
The court concluded that there was no valid reason to interfere with the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition, stating that “this Court does not find any valid or justifiable reason to interfere in the order of the trial court terming it to be illegal or not based on facts inasmuch as none of the essential ingredients to make out a case under Section 295-A IPC viz. (i) malicious & deliberate intention, (ii) outrage, (iii) insult or attempts to insult, (iv) the religion or the religious belief of that class are shown to have been made out against the accused- Gurdas Mann.”
Comments
0 comment