Mere Printing Or Selling Of Sarees With Artistic Depictions Of A Deity Cannot Be Presumed As Deliberate Malice: Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR U/S 295A IPC
In the complaint, it was alleged that sarees and fabrics bearing printed images of Lord Gautam Buddha, positioned on the lower portion such as the border or pallu, were being sold in the Surat textile market, wounding the community's religious sentiments.
Justice P.M.Raval, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that merely printing or selling textile material, which in the present case was on the border of a Saree Pallu, bearing an artistic depiction of a deity cannot automatically be presumed to be driven by deliberate malice. Quashing an FIR under Section 295A of the IPC against a Surat saree trader, the Court held that the offence requires a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings, which was absent here.
The Court further held that commercial activity involving religious motifs, undertaken without any overt act, inflammatory rhetoric or demonstrable intent to denigrate a belief, does not become a criminally punishable insult. Holding otherwise, it observed, would expand the statute beyond its constitutional parameters and penalise commercial practices lacking mens rea.
The FIR was registered in December 2017 on a complaint by the President of the Samast Yuva Ambedkar Samaj. It alleged that sarees and fabrics bearing printed images of Lord Gautam Buddha, positioned on the lower portion such as the border or pallu, were being sold in the Surat textile market, wounding the community's religious sentiments. The applicant, who trades as Shivam Textiles, was booked under Sections 295A read with 114 of the IPC.
A Bench of Justice P. M. Raval observed, “…The applicant is a commercial merchant engaged in the routine business of trading Sarees and dress materials based on prevailing market trends and designs. 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. 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”.
“…To hold otherwise would expand the criminal statute beyond its intended constitutional parameters and penalize commercial absent any criminal mens rea. Thus, the uncontroverted facts set out in the FIR, even when taken at face value, fail to establish a prima facie case of an aggravated insult to religion against the present applicant”, the Bench further said.
Advocate Rajesh K. Kanani for the applicant and Advocate N.K. Majmudar appeared for the respondent.
The applicant approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that the ingredients of Section 295A were not met, that the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident without explanation, and that it stemmed from business rivalry. The complainant and the State opposed the plea, contending that the photographs disclosed a prima facie case and that the Court should not conduct a mini trial at this stage.
The Court first set out the seven categories of cases in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal in which inherent powers may be exercised. Referring to Ramji Lal Modi and Mahendra Singh Dhoni, it reiterated that Section 295A penalises only the aggravated form of insult, committed with deliberate and malicious intention.
On the photographs, which the complainant did not dispute, it found nothing to suggest a deliberate and malicious insult. It also noted that a police report recorded that similar material was sold by others in Surat. Referring to the Maninder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Another Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Court found that the foundational ingredients were completely absent and that the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
Cause Title: Bharatbhai Hirjibhai Shankar v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:62863)
Appearances:
Applicant: Rajesh K. Kanani, Advocate.
Respondent: N.K. Majmudar, K.M. Antani, APP, Advocates.