The Delhi High Court has declined to quash an FIR filed against Delhi University professor Dr. Ratan Lal for his alleged objectionable social media post regarding the presence of a 'Shiva Linga' in the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed Dr. Lal's plea to nullify the FIR registered in May 2022 under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The court observed that, prima facie, the professor's remarks disrupted societal harmony and were intended to hurt the sentiments of a large section of the community.

In a judgment delivered on December 17, the judge highlighted the cultural and religious significance of the 'Shiva Linga' and underlined that no individual, regardless of being an intellectual or an academic, is entitled to make such comments or posts. Justice Singh reiterated that the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and must be exercised with responsibility.

The court further opined that the statements made by Dr. Lal were inconsistent with the beliefs and practices held sacred by the worshippers and followers of Lord Shiva. The FIR against the professor, therefore, stands as per the court's order.

"Whatever content was posted by the petitioner not only hurts the religious sentiments of the complainant but also promotes hatred, enmity, and communal tensions among two different communities. Moreover, the act of the petitioner by making repeated comments, even after registration of the FIR, further shows the deliberate and criminal act of the petitioner, which definitely attracts the applicability of Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC," the court stated.

"Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed," it ordered.

The court further said that as a historian and educator, the petitioner owed a greater responsibility to the society at large as he was a role model for the ordinary masses.

The court emphasized that the petitioner must be "more mindful" of his statements, recognizing their potential to influence others. Additionally, the court observed that the mere claim of no societal unrest or disharmony was insufficient to justify the quashing of an FIR.

"Mere nonoccurrence of unrest in the society does not negate the criminality of the petitioner's act as the said act of the petitioner was done with the intent, foresight and possibility of creating disturbance and disharmony in the society, thereby, causing unrest," the court said. The FIR was registered against the petitioner after a complaint was made against him to the police.