In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka has acquitted two youths, Keertan Kumar and N.M. Sachin Kumar, who faced charges for allegedly shouting “Jai Shri Ram” slogans in front of the Badriya Juma Masjid in Aithoor village, Kadaba taluk. The case, registered at the Kadaba Police Station, claimed that their actions hurt religious sentiments, leading to a petition from the accused to quash the First Information Report (FIR) and the ongoing case.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the single-judge bench, scrutinised the allegations and concluded that it was “unclear how shouting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ hurts religious sentiments.” The court referenced Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, asserting that it was not evident how the slogans could be offensive to any specific religious group.
The court’s ruling highlighted the context of communal harmony in the Kadaba area, where the complainants noted that Hindus and Muslims coexist peacefully. Justice Nagaprasanna stated, “Therefore, there’s no reason to assume such an incident would disrupt the harmony in the region.” This assertion played a crucial role in the court’s decision to quash the case, suggesting that the community’s overall well-being should be considered when evaluating the impact of such actions.
The High Court also examined the charges against the accused, which included mischief, causing social discord, criminal trespass, and intimidation. However, after reviewing the complaint, arguments from both sides, and the case documents, the court found no substantial evidence supporting these claims. “Continuing the case against the accused would be an abuse of the legal process,” the court remarked, ultimately allowing the petition and dismissing the charges.
The incident in question occurred on September 24, 2023, when C.M. Haidar Ali filed a complaint alleging that unidentified individuals had trespassed onto the mosque premises, shouted slogans, and made threats regarding the safety of the local Muslim community. This led to the registration of the FIR against the accused under various sections of the IPC, including criminal trespass, public nuisance, and intimidation, along with Section 295-A.
The High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the need to maintain communal harmony. By acquitting the accused, the court reinforced the idea that expressions of religious identity should not automatically be construed as provocations, especially in communities where different faiths coexist peacefully.
As the legal proceedings conclude, this case may prompt discussions around the implications of similar charges in the future and how society navigates the complexities of religious expression in a pluralistic context.