Court holds that inadvertent depiction of non-Amritdhari Sikh wearing Sri Sahib does not amount to deliberate insult under Section 295A IPC; emphasizes protection of artistic freedom and creative liberty
In a significant judgment dated September 7, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the director, producer, and actor of the film "Yaarian 2." The case arose from a complaint alleging that a song from the movie depicted a clean-shaven actor wearing the "Sri Sahib/Kirpan" - a sacred Sikh religious symbol - without adhering to Sikh customs, thereby hurting religious sentiments.
The FIR was lodged by Harpreet Singh, who contended that the portrayal violated Sikh religious codes, as only Amritdhari Sikhs are permitted to wear the Sri Sahib. The complainant claimed that the filmmakers acted with deliberate malice to outrage the religious feelings of the Sikh community.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Tajeshwar Singh, argued that the FIR was baseless and did not disclose any cognizable offence. They contended that the depiction was an unintentional and inadvertent act arising from a lack of knowledge rather than any malicious intent. They further emphasized that the visuals had already been removed, and an apology was tendered to the community.
The Court meticulously analyzed the ingredients of Section 295A IPC, which penalizes only those acts that are "deliberate and malicious" with intent to outrage religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs. Citing precedents including Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. and Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali, the Court underscored that artistic freedom and creative expression enjoy constitutional protection and that inadvertent or careless acts without mens rea do not attract criminal liability under Section 295A.
Reiterating the Supreme Court's guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the High Court observed that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute an offence. The Court held that the portrayal of a non-Amritdhari Sikh wearing the Sri Sahib in a song is an expression of creative liberty and cannot be construed as a deliberate insult or an act intended to outrage religious feelings. The Court also noted that the feelings of one individual do not necessarily represent the entire community's sentiments.
Accordingly, the Court quashed FIR No. 85 dated August 30, 2023, registered at Police Station Division 4, Jalandhar, Punjab, and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners.
This judgment reinforces the delicate balance between safeguarding religious sentiments and upholding freedom of artistic expression, emphasizing the necessity of mens rea for criminal culpability under Section 295A.
Bottom Line:
Section 295A IPC does not penalize careless or inadvertent acts that do not demonstrate deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings. Creative liberty and artistic expression are protected under the law.
Statutory provision(s): Section 295A IPC, Section 482 Cr.P.C
Radhika Rao v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975258
