Today, the Supreme Court seeks the Karnataka government's response regarding the identification process of the individuals accused of allegedly shouting "Jai Shri Ram" inside a mosque in the state.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta inquired whether CCTV footage or any other evidence was examined prior to determining the identity of the accused.

"How were the respondents identified? Did you see CCTV and made the accused party," the Court asked.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the complainant, challenging a Karnataka High Court ruling that had concluded that shouting "Jai Shri Ram" inside a mosque did not constitute an offence under the law regarding the outrage of religious feelings or sentiments.

The Court raised these questions to the complainant's counsel and subsequently ordered that a copy of the appeal be served to the State government. The State has not yet filed an appeal against the High Court's verdict.

"Serve the state. Petitioner to serve State of Karnataka. We are not issuing notice. List after 2 weeks," the Court directed.

On September 13, the Karnataka High Court had quashed the criminal proceedings against two men who were charged with insulting others' religious beliefs. The case pertains to allegations that two residents of Dakshin Kannada district, Keerthan Kumar and Sachin Kumar, entered the Badnya Jumma Mashib mosque last year and shouted "Jai Shri Ram."

The two also allegedly threatened that "they will not allow Bearys (Muslims) to live in peace."

The local police had booked both men under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 295A (acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 447 (trespass), and 506 (criminal intimidation), following a complaint filed against them. The two later approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking the quashing of the criminal case.

On September 13 this year, Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court granted relief to the accused and quashed the case, observing:

“Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts ‘Jai Sriram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class. When the complainant himself states that Hindu – Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony."

“The Apex Court holds that any and every act will not become an offence under Section 295A of the IPC. The acts that have no effect on bringing out peace or destruction of public order will not lead to an offence under Section 295A of the IPC," the High Court added.

The complainant in the case subsequently approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had taken an overly pedantic view of the matter and that its approach contradicted Supreme Court judgments on how to handle petitions for the quashing of criminal cases.

"It is submitted that the test to be employed in adjudicating a quashing petition is not whether the ingredients of offences alleged in the FIR are met, but whether the allegations made in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences," the appeal said.

According to the plea, the allegations in this case, on their face, suggest the commission of various offences. The complainant argued that the Supreme Court has consistently disapproved of quashing criminal proceedings at the investigation stage. Furthermore, the complainant disagreed with the High Court's observations on whether shouting "Jai Shri Ram" in a mosque would amount to an insult to a religious group.

"For reasons best known to itself, (the High Court) has adopted a very peculiar approach and rendered a finding that "It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Sriram' it would outrage the religious feeling of any class", completely ignoring the fact that such utterances were made by the accused by trespassing into the Mosque ... along with threatening the Muslim community. It is most deferentially submitted that such uncalled for and unjustified observations by the High Court will give a fillip to anti social elements, who in recent times have been seen to be resorting to such religious and devotional chants to justify gruesome crimes like mob lynching and targeted attacks upon the minorities across the country," the plea said.