How raising Jai Shri Ram slogan in mosque an offence : Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Karnataka Police on a petition challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash criminal proceedings against two individuals accused of entering a mosque and shouting the slogan "Jai Shri Ram."

The High Court, in its September 13 judgment, had ruled that shouting the religious slogan inside a mosque did not amount to an offence under Indian law.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the petition filed by the complainant, who argued that the High Court’s decision had prematurely dismissed the case without allowing a thorough investigation.

The complainant alleged that the actions of the accused amounted to criminal trespass, deliberate insult to religious beliefs, and incitement of communal disharmony.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for the complainant, contended that shouting "Jai Shri Ram" inside a mosque constituted an offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes acts that promote enmity between religious communities. He pointed out that the incident had disturbed the communal harmony in the area and required further investigation.

The bench, however, sought clarity on how shouting a slogan could be construed as an offence. Justice Mehta asked, “Alright, they were shouting a particular religious slogan. How is that an offence?”

In response, Kamat argued that shouting a slogan from one religion in a sacred space of another religion could amount to inciting communal disharmony and offending the religious sentiments of the community involved.

The Supreme Court also asked whether the accused had been conclusively identified.

Kamat informed the Court that CCTV footage from the mosque premises and the police’s remand report had identified the accused.

He added that the FIR was filed with sufficient details for initiating an investigation. “The FIR need only to give information about the offence and need not be an encyclopedia containing all evidence,” Kamat argued.

The bench refrained from issuing a formal notice but directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the petition to the State of Karnataka. It also sought the Karnataka Police’s response and scheduled the next hearing in January 2025.

According to the complaint, the incident occurred on the night of March 25, 2023, at the Badriya Jumma Masjid in Mardala, Aithoor Village, Karnataka. The complainant, who is the caretaker of the mosque, alleged that at around 10:50 p.m., two unknown individuals entered the mosque premises and began shouting the slogan "Jai Shri Ram." They also issued threats, reportedly saying they “would not allow Muslims to live in peace.”

The complainant, along with another individual named Naushad Saqafi, witnessed the two individuals fleeing the mosque premises on a two-wheeler. CCTV footage from the area allegedly showed a suspicious car patrolling near the mosque before the incident.

A complaint was lodged at Kadaba Police Station around 1:00 a.m., leading to the registration of an FIR against the unknown accused. The FIR included charges under the IPC sections: Section 295(A), Malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, Section 505, Statements conducive to public mischief, Section 506 Criminal intimidation, Section 447, Criminal Trespass.

The complainant alleged that the actions of the accused were aimed at creating a rift between communities in an area where Hindus and Muslims had historically lived in harmony.

Following the registration of the FIR, the Karnataka Police conducted an investigation and identified two suspects.

The accused were arrested on September 25, 2023, and remanded to judicial custody. However, they were granted bail on September 29, 2023.

Subsequently, the accused filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them.

On November 29, 2023, the High Court stayed the proceedings and later quashed the case entirely, ruling that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose any ingredients of the offences charged.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court observed that shouting "Jai Shri Ram" did not amount to a deliberate or malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings under Section 295(A). The Court stated, “It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Shri Ram,' it would outrage the religious feelings of any class. When the complainant himself states that Hindus and Muslims are living in harmony in the area, the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in communal disharmony.”

The High Court also ruled that there was no evidence of public mischief or criminal intimidation to support charges under Sections 505 and 506 of the IPC. Similarly, the Court found no grounds for invoking Section 447 for criminal trespass, as the allegations lacked specificity.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017), the High Court emphasized that not every insult or religious provocation could be penalized under Section 295(A). The judgment clarified that only acts performed with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings could attract penal provisions under the section.

In the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed before the Supreme Court, the complainant argued that the High Court’s judgment was contrary to established legal principles. The SLP asserted that the High Court had prematurely quashed the proceedings, despite the FIR disclosing cognizable offences that required a detailed investigation.

The petition highlighted that the incident occurred within the premises of a mosque and involved threats to the Muslim community. These factors, the complainant argued, established a prima facie case for further investigation. The petition contended that the High Court’s dismissal of the case had effectively impeded legitimate prosecution and denied justice.

The Supreme Court will examine the issues further in January 2025 after receiving Karnataka Police’s response.