Delhi: HC denies quashing of FIR against DU professor over controversial post on ‘Shivling’ found in Gyanvapi

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh rejected the petition seeking the quashing of an FIR filed against Dr Ratan Lal, a Delhi University History professor, for making derogatory remarks about the Shivlinga. The case, which has stirred debates about the misuse of freedom of speech, stems from a social media post by the professor in May 2022.

Background of the Case

Dr Ratan Lal had shared a photograph on social media, purportedly depicting a Shivlinga discovered during a survey of the Gyanvapi Vishveshwar Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Accompanying the image was a caption in Hindi that read, “Yadi yeh Shiv Ling hai to lagta hai shayad Shiv ji ka bhi khatna kar diya gaya tha” (“If this is a Shivlinga, it seems even Lord Shiva might have undergone circumcision”).

The comment sparked widespread outrage, leading to the registration of FIR No. 50/2022 on May 18, 2022, at the Cyber Police Station, North, Maurice Nagar, Delhi. The FIR was based on a complaint by Shiwal Bhalla, who said that the post was prejudicial to the maintenance of communal harmony, insulted religious beliefs, and had the potential to disturb public order. The FIR invoked Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Arguments Presented

During the hearings, counsel for the petitioner argued that Dr Ratan Lal’s post was an exercise of his right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They contended that the remarks were made in the capacity of a historian and were devoid of any malicious intent. Furthermore, they claimed that the FIR was a misuse of the legal process, as no unrest ensued from the post, and the essential ingredients to establish offences under Sections 153A and 295A were absent.

The prosecution, however, submitted that the remarks were derogatory and had elicited over 1,000 comments and 270 shares on social media, reflecting their potential to incite communal disharmony. The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) also presented a printout of the post as evidence, asserting that the professor’s remarks demonstrated deliberate and malicious intent.

Observations by the Court

Justice Singh emphasised the sanctity and significance of the Shivlinga in Hindu religious beliefs, drawing references from scriptures like the Shiv Purana. The Court observed that the professor’s remarks violated the faith and religious sentiments of worshippers while also promoting enmity and communal tensions. The judgment stated:

“No person, whether a professor, teacher, or intellectual, has the right to make such comments, tweets, or posts. Freedom of speech and expression, or any other freedom, is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly.”

Justice Singh further remarked that Dr Ratan Lal, as a historian and educator, owed a greater responsibility to society. The Court noted:

“An intellectual person is instrumental in guiding society and must be conscious while making public statements. Remarks of this nature, especially on social media platforms, carry significant influence and can disturb societal harmony.”

Legal Precedents and Reasoning

The Court referred to several judgments by the Supreme Court, underscoring the balance between the right to free speech and the need to maintain public order. It reiterated that Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC aim to prevent the misuse of freedom of speech by penalizing acts that promote enmity or disturb public peace.

Justice Singh highlighted that liability under these provisions arises when there is a clear and imminent likelihood of promoting enmity or disturbing public peace. The Court concluded that Dr Ratan Lal’s post, by its language and context, demonstrated malicious intent and fell within the ambit of these offences.

Judgment

In rejecting the petition to quash the FIR, Justice Singh reaffirmed the sanctity of religious beliefs and the responsibility of intellectuals to maintain societal harmony. The judgment stated:

“The sanctity of the Shivlinga and the faith of its worshippers have been violated by the petitioner’s remarks, which were made with the intent to outrage religious feelings and promote enmity. Such acts are prejudicial to public order and cannot be shielded under the guise of free speech.”

The Court’s decision underscores the principle that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain social harmony and public order.