Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR against a textile unit owner from Surat for hurting religious beliefs by printing images of Lord Buddha on the borders of saris and textile materials.
In 2017, Samast Yuva Ambedkar Samaj president Krunal Sonwane filed an FIR at Salabatpura police station against Bharat Shankar, owner of Shivam Textiles, accusing him of hurting religious sentiments under Section 295A of IPC.
The complaint said that Buddha’s images were printed on the lower borders of saris, which, he claimed, degraded the deity. Shankar moved HC against the FIR, claiming innocence, and his lawyer argued that he had no intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of people and that it was not a malicious act. He also argued that Sonwane was in the textile business and the FIR reflected business rivalry. The prosecution and Sonwane opposed the petition.
Mere printing or selling of textile materials containing artistic depictions of a deity or revered icon, even if appearing on portions of a garment near the lower border or pallu, cannot automatically be presumed to be an act driven by deliberate malice or calculated to disrupt public order. ” You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Ahmedabad | Silver Rate in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad | Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Petrol Price in Ahmedabad | Diesel Price in Ahmedabad | CNG Price in Ahmedabad | LPG Price in Ahmedabad Stay updated with the latest Ahmedabad news.
Ruling that “deliberate and malicious intention” to outrage religious feelings was completely absent in printing Buddha’s images in this case, the HC said, “Commercial activity involving religious motifs, undertaken without any overt act, inflammatory rhetoric, or demonstrable intent to denigrate a religious belief, does not cross the threshold into a criminally punishable insult under Section 295A. After hearing the case, Justice P M Raval said that Section 295A does not punish every act of insult to, or attempt to insult, religion or religious beliefs; it penalises only acts “which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class”. HC said, “Insults to religion offered carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class do not come within the section. Regarding this particular complaint, HC said, “The foundational ingredients of Section 295A of the IPC, specifically, a ‘deliberate and malicious intention’ to outrage religious feelings, are completely absent.
The applicant is a commercial merchant engaged in the routine business of trading saris and dress materials based on prevailing market trends and designs. Download the TOI App.