The Bombay High Court on Wednesday ruled that a comedy TV show dialogue, "Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!", did not intend to hurt religious sentiments and quashed a 2010 First Information Report (FIR) against actors Shekhar Suman and Bharati Singh. The court cautioned against the casual invocation of criminal law against artists.
Background of the Case
The dialogue was part of a television show broadcast in November 2010, where Suman served as a "judge" in the comedy program and Singh was a performer. The FIR was lodged by one Mohd Rasabi at the Pydhonie police station in Mumbai under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. The complainant alleged that the dialogue offended the religious sentiments of the Muslim community.
High Court's Observations
The High Court emphasized that criminal law should not be invoked casually against an artist or a program judge merely because someone feels insulted by a performance viewed out of context. "There must be deliberate targeting of religious feeling. There must be malicious object," the court stated. In the absence of any such connection, the FIR was quashed.
Justice Borkar, presiding over the case, noted: "If the complaint is taken at its face value, the material does not show an intention to outrage the religious feelings of any class. At the highest, it suggests that some viewers may have felt offended by the style of expression used in the performance. But offence felt by a section of viewers is not enough in law unless the mental element is also disclosed."
Arguments Presented
Senior counsel Niteen Pradhan, representing the actors, argued that the show, titled "Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo", was a light family-oriented entertainment program featuring comic performances by various artists. It was not intended to hurt public or religious sentiments and had no nexus to real life or contemporary public affairs. Pradhan also highlighted that no prior sanction was obtained as mandated before prosecuting for an offence related to communal disharmony. The High Court agreed that the lack of such sanction rendered the prosecution infirm.
Megha Bajoria, the state's additional public prosecutor, opposed the plea for relief, contending that whether an offence is actually made out should be left for trial. However, Justice Borkar observed: "If the foundation for an offence itself is absent, then to compel the petitioners to face the rigour of criminal proceedings would itself be unjustified. The mere saying that trial should proceed cannot cure the absence of legal ingredients."
Court's Conclusion
Justice Borkar agreed with Pradhan's submissions, stating that the show's background and aim to showcase comedy are significant. The program was "telecast as a family entertainment and had been running for a considerable time." The court further noted: "A judge in a comedy show does not stand in the position of a speaker making a declaration against a religious group."
The actors had approached the High Court in 2012 through two separate petitions seeking the quashing of the FIR. With this ruling, the legal proceedings against them have been terminated.
