I recently had the satisfaction of coming across a news item which stated that the Karnataka High Court had quashed the criminal case lodged by the police against two persons in connection with allegedly raising Jai Shri Ram slogans inside a mosque. His lordship the Honourable Justice M Nagaprasanna apparently mentioned that it was not understandable how the raising of “Jai Shri Ram” slogans would hurt the religious feelings of any community.
Apparently section 295A of the Indian Penal Code had been invoked along with sections referable to criminal trespass (s.447) statements conducive to public mischief (s.505), common intention (s.34) and outraging religious feelings (s.295A). The report says the bench noted that the complainant in the case had himself stated that Hindus and Muslims were living in harmony in the concerned area (apparently the complainant had also mentioned that shouting the slogans in question would flare up communal tension) and concluded that permitting of further proceedings against the petitioners would become an abuse of process of law.
Slogan raised in mosque
The charge was that on September 24, 2023 at about 10:50 pm the accused gentlemen had barged inside the mosque and raised the slogans.
I would imagine that anybody making a complaint of this type would naturally point out that the two communities were living in harmony and therefore raising such slogans would cause communal tension, disrupting that harmony, it being a factor of some significance that the slogans were raised quite late in the night and in a place of religious worship of the other community, Muslims.
While I would imagine that certain statements in certain places would be quite acceptable and even expected the same statements in a different setting could cause consternation. I recall a case in a court in Hyderabad when on being informed that the accused had uttered some abusive words the judge expressed shock when the counsel for the accused pointed out that the court should examine where those abusive words were stated and it then became known that it was stated in a toddy compound where people present were prone to drunkenness and brawls and use of such expletives, and therefore such language there was not unexpected.
In the instant case, slogans of one orientation were shouted, not spoken, within a place of worship of another orientation, that too late in the night.
What was the purpose?
Could it have been to provoke a reaction and then benefit from that? I am sure the honourable judge would have considered all these aspects, and most judiciously at that. Considering that no judge of a high court speaks for his individual self and all judgments go in the name of the court in question, perhaps the citizenry can justifiably conclude that the High Court of Karnataka has concluded that shouting of the concerned slogan in a mosque is okay from the criminal law point of view, and that status remains (unless of course the Supreme Court decides to intervene).
Interesting possibilities
Considering that this is what the law declared by the high court is, should it be considered acceptable if this is now repeated “n” number of times across the state in different districts, towns and cities, perhaps on the basis that India is after all a pluralistic, inclusive, secular democracy, and slogans of one religious orientation spoken, if not shouted, in the place of worship of persons of another religious orientation, frequently in conflict with each other? Taking the view of the High Court of Karnataka to its logical conclusion the answer should be “Yes!”
Extrapolating, we will have then a competition of sorts with more and more instances of slogans of one religious orientation being aired in the places of worship of persons of other religious orientations. It is after all held acceptable and that it does not hurt religious feelings. All Indians will now become closer together unless of course some other court decides to take a different view. For instance some judge in some court somewhere just might erroneously come to the conclusion that calling out Allahu Akbar in a mandir is not the done thing and should not be permitted on the ground that people of the Hindu faith in that mandir or anywhere else may not be very appreciative of such conduct and would consider it obstructive interference or worse.
Do not try such approach
It is quite possible that such a hypothetical judge in a hypothetical court while in seisin of such a hypothetical case can also take the view that the honourable High Court of Karnataka has taken and hold that religious feelings would not be hurt. As a matter of abundant caution however I would not suggest that anybody try any such thing.
For one thing, the person who makes the attempt can experience a rather immediate, drastic and grievous time, to put it mildly. For another, since judicial thinking also evolves with time and can change, such a hypothetical judge in a hypothetical court while in seisin of such a hypothetical case could conceivably come to an entirely different conclusion and hold that such conduct would be disruptive of communal harmony, conducive to public mischief, create disorder, cause a riot, and even wonder whether charges referable to terrorism should not be added for good measure.
When the Babri Masjid decision was rendered my opinion was (and remains) that it was not a correct decision and was contrary to what the law ought to have resulted in when applied to the facts of that case. My opinion also was (and remains) that the judges decided the way they decided perhaps factoring in the possibility that a different decision could result in complications of one party wanting the masjid to be rebuilt at the same spot, the other party resisting it and communal conflagration further engulfing the nation in problems, although that cannot and ought not to be the basis on which any decision is rendered, since the court’s job should be to reach the result based on the law applied to the facts of a given case and whether that would please or displease a section of the population is a matter for the political executive to consider and handle.
Was it a desirable objective?
Be that as it may that view leads to the possibility of the judgement being a judgement based on a desirable political objective as a less harmful result rather than a decision based exclusively on law disregarding the potential civil strife consequences.
The present decision (referred to above of the honourable High Court of Karnataka) leaves one wondering whether it can be said that not adopting even that flawed approach while leaving open the possibility, and that too by an express conclusion arrived at by the honourable High Court that it would not be conduct disruptive of communal harmony, conducive to public mischief, creating disorder, or even cause a riot, of this decision being considered, by some enterprising gentlemen and ladies of one or the other religious affiliation or political inclination, to attempt to replicate this to accelerate what they would like to see as a march towards a desirable objective, whatever that objective might be?
The clamour to make India theocratic State
There is a clamour for making India a theocratic monochromatic nation and for legitimising the demands for one nation one law. These instances can operate as a catalyst in that direction, desirable for one section, not so for others. Whether these instances reflect inadvertently revealed possibility of a subconscious insidious bias that could in the process create chaos and widen schisms in society, create further misgivings, etc., remains to be seen.
Also, what remains to be seen is how far, to what extent and in what manner these aberrations dovetail with and promote national interest, or operate to pull the rug from under the feet of those proclaiming we are at the stage of attaining the status of a Vishwa Guru, causing the grand edifice to dissolve as a mirage
I don’t know. I am not a judge.
| 
