Supreme Court Rules ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ & ‘Pakistani’ Remarks Do Not Constitute Religious Offense
The Supreme Court ruled that using terms like “miyan-tiyan” and “Pakistani” is not an offense under Section 298 IPC, though made in poor taste. The verdict discharged the accused in a case of allegedly hurting religious sentiments.
New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has stated that the usage of terms such as “miyan-tiyan” and “Pakistani” does not amount to an offense of hurting religious sentiments, although it may be considered inappropriate and in poor taste.
The apex court’s decision led to the discharge of a man who was facing criminal charges filed by an Urdu translator and acting clerk under the Right to Information (RTI) Act at the sub-divisional office in Chas, Jharkhand.
Table of Contents
Supreme Court’s Observations on Religious Sentiment Claims
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict on February 11, 2025. The court ruled that while the remarks made by the accused, Hari Nandan Singh, were indeed in poor taste, they did not meet the legal criteria necessary to constitute an offense under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This section pertains to intentional acts aimed at wounding religious sentiments.
The court’s statement read:
“The appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him ‘miyan-tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani.’ Undoubtedly, the statements made are in poor taste. However, they do not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant. Hence, we think that the appellant shall also be discharged under Section 298 IPC.”
Background of the Case
The case originated when Hari Nandan Singh sought certain information under the RTI Act from the Additional Collector-cum-first appellate authority in Bokaro. After receiving the requested information via registered post, Singh appealed again, alleging manipulation in the documents sent to him.
The appellate authority then directed the Urdu translator to personally deliver the requested information to Singh. On November 18, 2020, the informant, accompanied by a messenger from the sub-divisional office, visited Singh’s residence to hand over the documents.
Singh initially refused to accept them but later took the documents after persistent urging by the informant. It was during this exchange that Singh allegedly used derogatory language and abused the informant while making reference to his faith.
The Urdu translator subsequently lodged an FIR against Singh, accusing him of verbal abuse and physical intimidation. As a result, criminal charges were filed against Singh under Sections 298 (hurting religious sentiments), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging duty), and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the IPC.
Legal Proceedings and High Court Ruling
Following an investigation, the trial court found enough merit in the case to frame charges against Singh under the aforementioned IPC sections. Singh then approached the Jharkhand High Court, seeking to quash the proceedings. However, the High Court dismissed his plea, upholding the trial court’s decision.
Singh subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his statements, while impolite, did not amount to an intentional offense warranting criminal charges.
Supreme Court’s Final Verdict
After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Singh, stating that there was no concrete evidence to suggest that his actions were intended to provoke a breach of peace. The Bench further emphasized that while his words may have been inappropriate, they did not fulfill the legal threshold required for an offense under Sections 298 and 504 of the IPC.
- Also Read | Supreme Court to Rule Today on Disqualification of 10 Telangana BRS MLAs Who Joined Congress
The Supreme Court’s final ruling was as follows:
“We set aside the order of the High Court, which had sustained the order of the trial court, and consequently allow the application filed by the appellant. The appellant is discharged from all three offenses alleged against him.”
Legal Implications of the Ruling
This verdict sets a precedent in interpreting the scope of Section 298 IPC, clarifying that the use of certain words or phrases—while offensive or inappropriate—does not necessarily constitute an offense against religious sentiments unless there is clear intent to wound religious beliefs. The ruling also underscores the necessity for a balanced approach when interpreting freedom of speech and protection of religious sentiments under the law.
Legal experts believe this ruling may have broader implications for cases related to free speech and expression in India. It highlights the need to distinguish between offensive language and legally punishable speech, ensuring that criminal proceedings are not misused to settle personal grievances or silence individuals.
