Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against individuals accused of selling books allegedly containing derogatory remarks about Hindu gods and saints. While declining to interfere with the FIR at this stage, the court halted the ongoing trial proceedings after observing that the mandatory legal sanction required to prosecute offences relating to outraging religious sentiments had not been obtained.
The order was passed by Justice Rakesh Kainthla on July 17 while hearing a petition filed by booksellers from Nalagarh in Solan district, who challenged the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated against them. The accused had been booked for allegedly distributing publications containing material that was claimed to be offensive to Hindu religious beliefs.
According to the court, the books seized by the police would have to be examined by the trial court to determine whether the contents were justified or amounted to an offence under the law. At the current stage, the High Court found no grounds to quash the FIR.
In its order, the court observed that prima facie, making defamatory remarks against Hindu gods and saints revered by followers of the religion could indicate an intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens. The court stated that such allegations disclosed an actionable offence and therefore did not warrant interference during the initial stage of criminal proceedings.
The case originated after a man allegedly purchased several books, including Hindu Dharam Mahaan, and claimed that it contained insulting references to Hindu deities and saints. Following his complaint, an FIR was registered at the Nalagarh Police Station.
Among the books mentioned during the proceedings were Hindu Dharam Mahaan, Geeta Tera Gyan Amrit, Kabir Parmeshwar, Jeene Ki Raah and Gyan Ganga. The investigation also revealed that some of these publications had been authored by Sant Rampal. After seizing the books, police recorded witness statements, completed the investigation and filed a chargesheet against the accused sellers.
The petitioners argued before the High Court that the prosecution had failed to obtain the mandatory sanction required under law before initiating proceedings for offences relating to outraging religious sentiments. Their counsel contended that the complainant had selectively quoted isolated passages from the books, taking them out of context to create an impression that they were offensive.
The defence further submitted that the publications had been widely available for circulation and that merely selling them could not constitute a criminal offence. They urged the court to set aside both the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings.
Representing the state government, Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria opposed the plea, arguing that the FIR and the chargesheet clearly alleged that the books were distributed with the intention of hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus by making defamatory remarks about Hindu gods and saints. According to the prosecution, these allegations were sufficient to constitute a cognisable offence requiring judicial examination.
During the hearing, the state also acknowledged that the required sanction for prosecution had not yet been obtained. It informed the court that a request seeking the necessary approval had already been sent to the competent authority.
While refusing to quash the FIR, the High Court agreed that the absence of the mandatory sanction created a legal defect in the prosecution. It observed that under the law, prior sanction from the competent authority is necessary before courts can take cognisance of certain offences relating to acts intended to outrage religious feelings or offences against the state.
Consequently, the court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed without such sanction. It therefore set aside the proceedings pending before the trial court while allowing the FIR to remain in force.
The High Court clarified that its order would not prevent the state government from initiating fresh proceedings after obtaining the requisite sanction in accordance with law.
The court also underlined that the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. It noted that the freedom guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions, including those relating to public order. Therefore, the accused could not seek blanket protection under the freedom of speech argument at this stage of the proceedings.
With the ruling, the High Court has drawn a distinction between the validity of the FIR and the procedural requirement of obtaining prior sanction for prosecution. While the allegations will continue to be investigated through the criminal justice process, any further trial proceedings can resume only after the statutory sanction is secured by the state government.
