Top court quashes case against accused, says words may be improper but not criminal
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that referring to a person as ‘Mian-Tian’ or ‘Pakistani’ may be inappropriate but does not constitute a criminal offence under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision came during a hearing where a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma quashed charges against Harinarayan Singh, who was accused of using these terms against a Muslim government employee.
The case was filed by Mohammad Shamimuddin, an Urdu translator working in the Chas subdivision office of Bokaro, Jharkhand. He alleged that Singh had made derogatory remarks referring to his religion, which hurt his religious sentiments. According to Shamimuddin, when he went to provide information related to an RTI application, Singh referred to him as ‘Mian-Tian’ and ‘Pakistani’.
Following the complaint, the police investigated and filed an FIR against Singh. The magistrate took cognizance of the matter in July 2021 and summoned the accused under IPC Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duties), 298 (words intended to hurt religious feelings), and 504 (insult with intent to provoke breach of peace).
After failing to get relief from the district court and the Jharkhand High Court, Singh approached the Supreme Court. The apex court ruled that Section 353 of the IPC was not applicable as there was no physical assault or use of force. Additionally, the court found no grounds for charges under Section 504, stating that Singh’s words, while improper, did not amount to incitement to violence.
“The use of words like ‘Mian-Tian’ and ‘Pakistani’ is certainly indicative of improper and bad behaviour, but it does not amount to an offence under Section 298,” the bench observed.
The ruling has raised concerns among activists and social workers, who argue that the judiciary is showing leniency in cases where minorities are subjected to derogatory remarks.
“There are hundreds of instances where Hindus have been favoured in similar cases, while Muslims face punishment for far less offences. The Supreme Court is promoting communalism,” said Aditya Narayan, a social worker.
Muslim organisations and civil rights groups have expressed disappointment over the judgment, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent for normalising derogatory references to religious identity. “If calling someone ‘Mian-Tian’ is not a crime today, what will be excused tomorrow? This judgment weakens protections against hate speech,” said one activist.
Legal experts and activists are now calling for stricter laws to address verbal abuse and hate speech targeting religious minorities. “Words have consequences, and such statements can create an atmosphere of hostility. This decision might embolden those who seek to target minorities under the guise of free speech,” said a legal analyst.
The judgment has reignited debates on judicial impartiality and the need for stronger protections against religious discrimination. Many believe that while free speech is a fundamental right, it should not come at the cost of dignity and respect for all communities.