The Supreme Court noted that referring to a man as "Miyan-Tiyan" and "Pakistani" may be distasteful; however, it does not constitute an offence of hurting religious sentiments.

While discharging a person from the charge under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code (which pertains to uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), the Court stated that referring to someone as "Miyan-Tiyan" and "Pakistani" may be distasteful but does not amount to an offence of hurting religious sentiments.

"The appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani.” Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant."

A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing an appeal against a Jharkhand High Court judgment that had refused to discharge the appellant.

The case stemmed from an FIR filed by an Urdu translator and acting clerk (Right to Information) at the Sub-Divisional Office, Chas. The complainant alleged that the appellant, upon being approached for information related to an RTI application, verbally abused him with references to his religion and used criminal force to obstruct him from performing his official duties.

Eventually, the appellant was charged under Sections 353, 298, and 504 of the IPC. However, the Supreme Court found that the complaint did not establish the essential ingredients of these offences. The Court noted that there was no evidence of assault or use of force by the appellant to invoke Section 353 IPC.

Additionally, it held that the charge under Section 504 IPC was unwarranted, as there was no act on the appellant's part that could have incited a breach of peace.

Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen and advocates Arya Kumari, Divya Singhvi, Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mansi Gupta and Vipin Gupta appeared for the accused.

Standing Counsel Vishnu Sharma and advocates Shiv Ram Sharma, Tulika Mukherjee, Venkat Narayan and Beenu Sharma appeared for the State.

Case : Hari Nandan Singhv v State of Jharkhand