apex gaming88 Supreme Court Asks: 'How Is Shouting 'Jai Shri Ram' Inside Mosque An Offence?'

Supreme Court of India Photo: PTI Supreme Court of India Photo: PTI

The Supreme Court on Monday (December 16) sought the stance of the State of Karnataka in a petition challenging the Karnataka High Court's view that shouting "Jai Shri Ram" inside a mosque would not constitute an offence.apex gaming88

The Supreme Court questioned how raising the slogan "Jai Shri Ram" could be considered a criminal offence. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while hearing a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court's order, which quashed proceedings against two individuals who allegedly shouted "Jai Shri Ram" inside a mosque.

Also Read | What's In A Slogan? Jai Shri Ram: From Devotion To Intimidation

"They were shouting a particular religious phrase or name. How is that an offence?" the bench asked during the hearing of the plea. The apex court also questioned how the persons who allegedly entered the mosque and shouted the slogan were identified.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, representing the petitioner, argued that the proceedings were stayed within twenty days of filing the FIR, despite the investigation still being at a preliminary stage. "Alright, they were shouting a particular religious slogan. How is that an offence?" Justice Mehta asked. Kamat argued that shouting a religious slogan in another religious place would amount to the offence of inciting communal disharmony under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench further asked whether the accused persons had been identified. Kamat responded that CCTV visuals had been collected and the police had identified the accused persons, as recorded in the remand report. The bench then asked whether simply spotting the accused near the mosque would imply that they shouted the slogans.

"Are you able to identify the actual accused? What material have you brought?" the court questioned. Kamat clarified that he was only representing the complainant (the mosque caretaker) and that it was the police's responsibility to conduct the investigation and collect evidence. He added that the FIR only needed to provide information about the offence and did not have to be an "encyclopedia" containing all evidence.

The bench, while stating that it was not issuing a formal notice, directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the petition to the State of Karnataka. The matter will be posted again in January 2025.

Background Of The Case

The incident in question allegedly took place on September 24, 2023, when some unknown individuals reportedly entered a mosque and shouted "Jai Shri Ram," followed by threats. A complaint was filed at the Kadaba Police Station in Puttur circle, where the complainant stated that these actions were intended to create tension between the Hindu and Muslim communities in the area, which had been living in harmony.

The complainant alleged that the act violated several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and an FIR was registered against the unknown accused under Sections 447 (punishment for criminal trespass), 295(A) (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 505 (statements conducing public mischief), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention) of the IPC.

lucky 777 slots

Following the registration of the FIR, the police conducted an investigation and identified two accused persons. On September 25, 2023, the accused were arrested and produced before the Magistrate, where they were remanded to judicial custody. However, the accused soon moved for bail, which was granted on September 29.

Subsequently, the accused filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings.

On November 29, 2023, the Karnataka High Court stayed the proceedings before the civil judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshin Kannada. The High Court, in its order, had said, "It is understandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Sriram' it would outrage the religious feeling of any class."

"The complaint itself narrates that the complainant has not even seen who is the one who is alleged to have committed offence of criminal intimidation attracting ingredients of section 506 of the IPC."

Speaking of Malaysia, they kicked off their campaign with a 2-2 draw against Pakistan. However, in their second game, the hosts, China, proved too strong as Malaysia could only score twice while China found the net four times, winning the match 4-2.

On the other hand, Japan is coming off a defeat at the hands of India's dominance, losing 1-4 to the Men in Blue. Japan's sole goal came from Matsumoto who scored with a lucky deflection to give his side their first and only goal of the game.

Consequently, the entire criminal proceedings were quashed on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint/FIR did not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged.

(With inputs from Live Law)apex gaming88