Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the FIR registered against self-professed spiritual guru Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan for allegedly insulting religious sentiments under Section 295-A of the IPC.

The bench headed by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul also quashed all consequential proceedings.

During the proceedings before Justice Kaul's Bench, it was conveyed that the petitioner, in a satsang on February 28, 2016, shared an "illustrative incident" involving Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas. This incident, integral to the FIR registered on March 7 at Patara police station in Jalandhar district, was brought to the attention of the court.

Justice Kaul observed the only question for the court’s consideration was whether the discourse on an incident involving Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas would fall within the purview of Section 295-A so as to term it blasphemous.

Justice Kaul emphasized that Section 295-A does not prescribe penalties for every instance of insult. Instead, it specifically targets deliberate and aggravated acts of insult intended to outrage the religious feelings of the community.

To invoke a charge under Section 295-A, it must be established that the insult was intentional, directed at insulting someone, and driven by a malicious motive.

Justice Kaul further clarified that mild criticism or expressions that did not grossly offend the religious sensibilities of a community should not be subject to criminalization. The provisions were designed to maintain a delicate balance between the freedom of speech and the protection of religious sentiments.

 The narrative did not appear to insult the religious sentiments or beliefs of any specific group, as it was deeply rooted in the historical resources.

The petitioner employed local colloquial terms, but Justice Kaul emphasized that such usage did not imply disrespect to the followers of Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas.

“Neither the state, nor the complainant contested the contents of the historical texts annexed with the petition. Since the narrative is not a product of the petitioner’s imagination and does not contain any exaggerated elements, it cannot be said to have been delivered with any malicious intent,” Justice Kaul asserted.

Justice Kaul emphasized that Section 295-A did not prescribe penalties for every act of insult. Rather, it specifically targeted deliberate and aggravated acts of insult intended to outrage the religious feelings of the community. He further clarified that mild criticism or expressions that did not grossly offend the religious sensibilities of a community should not be subjected to criminalization under this section.