SC Stays Criminal Proceedings Against SP Leader Swami Prasad Maurya Over ‘Ramcharitmanas’ Remark

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the criminal proceedings against Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Swami Prasad Maurya in a case related to his alleged controversial remark about Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta also issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government, seeking its response in the matter.

Maurya had approached the apex court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order, which had dismissed his plea to quash legal proceedings in a Pratapgarh district court related to the case of remarks against Tulsidas’ ‘Ramcharitmanas.’

During the hearing, Justice Mehta questioned the counsel representing Uttar Pradesh, stating, “It is his (Maurya’s) opinion. How is it an offence?”

Maurya, a former UP Minister, faced accusations of making a statement suggesting that certain “chaupayi” of the Ramcharitmanas insulted a significant section of society and should be banned. He allegedly claimed that the sacred Hindu text Ramcharitmanas, written by Tulsidas, abused dalits, tribals, and backward classes by naming their castes and calling them “shudra.”

In November 2023, the Allahabad High Court, after examining the chargesheet and other documents, found sufficient grounds to establish a prima facie case against Maurya. The High Court ruled that Maurya should proceed to trial in the lower court and emphasized that public representatives should avoid actions that could disrupt communal harmony.

Following Maurya’s remarks, an FIR was filed against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including promoting enmity between different groups, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and creating statements promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes. The FIR alleged that Maurya’s comments led to the burning of copies of Ramcharitmanas by other leaders across India, creating an atmosphere of anger and unrest.

Maurya argued that the case against him was politically motivated and lacked substantial evidence.