The Supreme Court of India ruled on Tuesday that while calling someone ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ or ‘Pakistani’ may be in poor taste, it does not amount to an offence of hurting religious sentiments under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made this observation while quashing a case against a man who had been accused of calling a government servant ‘Pakistani’ in Jharkhand.
SC Quashes Jharkhand High Court’s Order
The case was filed by an Urdu translator and acting clerk, who alleged that the accused had made religiously charged remarks and used criminal force to prevent him from carrying out his official duties.
The complaint led to an FIR under the following IPC sections:
– Section 298 – Hurting religious sentiments
– Section 504 – Insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace
– Section 353 – Assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging duty
However, the Supreme Court dismissed these charges, stating that while the remarks were inappropriate, they did not amount to hurting religious sentiments or provoking violence.
ALSO READ: ‘6-year disqualification sufficient’: Centre opposes life ban on convicted politicians before SC
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The top court rejected the Jharkhand High Court’s decision, clarifying that the accused’s words were distasteful but not criminal – “Undoubtedly, the statements made are in poor taste. However, they do not amount to hurting religious sentiments,” the bench noted.
The court ruled that there was no assault or physical intimidation by the accused that could justify charges under Section 353 IPC.
The remarks, though offensive, did not provoke violence or a law-and-order issue, as required under Section 504 IPC.
What This Ruling Means
The Supreme Court’s ruling sets an important precedent regarding freedom of speech and religious sensitivity in India. While it discouraged offensive language, it also emphasized that not all distasteful remarks amount to criminal offences.
This verdict is expected to influence future cases where insensitive speech is mistaken for a criminal act.
