The Delhi High Court recently quashed summon orders issued against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena’s (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray for purportedly inflammatory speech delivered by him on Chhath Puja.
The bench headed by Justice Jasmeet Singh quash the order issued by courts in Bokaro (Jharkhand), Begusarai (Bihar), Patna and Ranchi.
Therefore, while passing the order, Court observed, India is a country with it’s unique owing to its various religions, faiths and languages which coexist side by side.
The order stated that “I am of the view that India is a country which is unique due to various religions, faiths and languages which coexist side by side. Its unity lies in this “coexistence.” Religious feelings and religious sentiments cannot be so fragile as to be hurt or provoked by a speech of an individual. Religion and faith are not as fragile as human beings. They have survived for centuries and will survive for many more. Faith and religion are more resilient and cannot be hurt or provoked by views of/ instigation by an individual.”
Therefore, complaints were filed against Raj Thackeray in various cities after he made some sort of statements regarding Chhath Pooja in the year 2009. The complainants stated that Thackeray’s comments have hurt their religious sentiments.
The magistrates took cognizance of offences under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 295A (outraging religious feeling) and 298 (wounding the religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In 2011, the Supreme Court transferred all the matters to the Tis Hazari court. Then, Thackeray moved to the Delhi High Court in year 2018 seeking to quash complaints against him.
Counsel argued for Thackeray before the high court that he hasn’t made any inflammatory provocative speech as alleged in the complaint.
Furthermore, he added that if the speech caused any unintentional harm to any religious sentiments of any person or community, Thackeray mentions his unconditional apology & expresses regret for the same.
After studying the case, Justice Singh rejected the summoning orders, noting that the procedures laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and haven’t been followed for issuing summons.
“In the present case there has been no inquiry conducted by the learned Magistrate before proceeding to issue summons…Hence in the absence of inquiry, the summoning of the petitioner u/s 298 IPC cannot be sustained.” However, Court rejected to quash the criminal complaint.
