“Calling Someone ‘Miyan-Tiyan’, ‘Pakistani’ In Poor Taste, But Not An Offence” Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that while expressions such as “Miyan-Tiyan” or “Pakistani” may be socially inappropriate, they do not meet the legal threshold for an offense under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses the deliberate wounding of religious sentiments.

The court, in discharging the accused from this charge, emphasized that although the remarks lacked propriety, they did not constitute a criminal act under the applicable statutory provisions.

Judicial Reasoning & Verdict

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma adjudicated the appeal of Hari Nandan Singh, who had been accused of referring to a government official as “Pakistani” while the latter was performing official duties.

“Undoubtedly, the statements made are in poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant shall also be discharged under Section 298 IPC,” the Court stated in its judgment dated February 11.

Factual Background & Allegations

The complainant, an Urdu translator and acting clerk under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, delivered official documents to Singh pursuant to an appellate authority’s directive. Singh, initially reluctant to accept the documents, eventually complied but allegedly made derogatory remarks about the complainant’s religion.

Additionally, Singh was accused of using criminal force to intimidate the complainant and obstruct the execution of his duties. Consequently, an FIR was registered against Singh under various IPC provisions, including:

– Section 298 – Uttering words with the intent to wound religious feelings
– Section 504 – Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace
– Section 506 – Criminal intimidation
– Section 353 – Assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from duty
– Section 323 – Voluntarily causing hurt

Court’s Legal Analysis & Conclusion

Upon review, the Magistrate framed charges under Sections 353, 298, and 504 while dismissing the charges under Sections 323 and 506 due to a lack of sufficient evidence. Singh’s petition for discharge was rejected by both the Sessions Court and the Rajasthan High Court, prompting him to seek redress before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, after a comprehensive examination of the case, determined that there was no substantial evidence to sustain the charge under Section 353 IPC, holding that the High Court had erred in not granting discharge under this provision.

Similarly, the Court found Section 504 IPC inapplicable, as Singh’s actions did not demonstrate a clear intent to provoke a breach of peace.

With respect to Section 298 IPC, the Court clarified that while Singh’s remarks were inappropriate, they did not satisfy the legal requirements necessary to constitute a criminal offense under this section.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court discharged Singh of all charges, reinforcing the principle that offensive speech, though morally questionable, does not amount to a criminal act unless it explicitly violates the legal criteria for religious offense.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the distinction between speech that is offensive in a social context and speech that meets the statutory definition of a criminal offense, ensuring that legal liability is not imposed based solely on subjective disapproval.