http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: S. VEERABADRAN CHETTIAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: E. V. RAMASWAMI NAICKER & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/08/1958

BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. IMAM, SYED JAFFER WANCHOO, K.N.

CITATION:  1958 AIR 1032            1959 SCR 1211

ACT: Insult to Religion-Ingredients of offence--Interpretation of statute-Duty  of Court-Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of  1860), s. 295.

HEADNOTE: The words " any object held sacred by any class of  persons" occurring in S. 295 Of the Indian Penal Code are of  general import  and cannot be limited to idols in temples  or  idols carried  on festival occasions.  Not merely idols or  sacred books,  but any other object which is regarded as sacred  by any  class of persons, whether actually worshipped  or  not, fall within the description. Queen  Empress  v. Imam Ali, (1887) I.L.R. 10 All.  150  and Romesh Chunder Sannyal v. Hiru Mondal, (1890) I.L.R. 17 Cal. 852, considered. Consequently, in a case where the allegation in the petition of  complaint was that one of the accused broke the idol  of God  Ganesa in public and the two others actually aided  and abetted  him with the intention of insulting  the  religious feeling  of the complainant and his community who  held  the deity in veneration and the trial Magistrate, on receipt  of the  Police  report that the alleged  occurrence  was  true, dismissed the complaint under S. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that the breaking of a mud image of Ganesa was not an offence under s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code and the Sessions judge and the High Court in revision,  agreeing with the view of the trial Court, refused to direct  further enquiry : Held, that the courts below were clearly in error in  inter- preting  S.  295 of the Indian Penal Code in  the  way  they (lid,  but  since  the complaint stood  long  dismissed,  no further enquiry need be directed into the matter. Held,  further, that the Courts must be circumspect in  such matters and pay due regard to the religious susceptibilities of  different  classes of persons  with  different  beliefs, whether  they shared those beliefs or not or  whether  those beliefs in the opinion of the Court were rational or not.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1956. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated October  13,  1954,  of the Madras High  Court  in  Criminal Revision Case No. 267 and 1954 154 1212 (Criminal Revision Petition No. 249 of 1954) arising out  of the judgment and order dated January 12, 1954, of the  Court of  the  District and Sessions Judge  as  Tiruchirapalli  in Criminal Revision Petition No. 17 of 1953. R.   Ganapathy   Iyer   and  G.  Gopalakrishnan,   for   the appellant. No one appeared for the respondents. 1958.   August 25.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by SINHA J.-The only question for determination in this  appeal by  special  leave, is whether the  petition  of  complaint, disclosed  a prima facie offence under s. 295 of the  Indian Penal  Code.  The courts below have taken the view  that  it did  not, and on that ground, it stood summarily  dismissed, before evidence pro and con had been recorded. It appears that the appellant filed a petition of  complaint in  the  court  of the  Additional  First-Class  Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli,  against the respondents, three in  number. The petition of complaint alleged inter alia that the  first accused  is  the leader of Dravida Kazakam (a  community  of persons who profess to be religious reformers, one of  whose creeds is to carry on propaganda against idol worship),  and as  such,  be was out to " vilify a certain section  of  the Hindu  community and do propaganda by holding  meetings  and writing  articles.  " It is further alleged in the  petition of  complaint that " recently, the first  accused  announced his  intention of breaking the image of God Ganesa, the  God sacred  to the Saiva Section of the Hindu Community on  27th May,  1953, in a public meeting at Town Hall.   This  caused terror-commotion  in the mind of the Saivite Section of  the -Hindu Community.  " The complainant claims to be a Saivite. The complainant further alleged in his petition that on  May 27,  1953, at about 5-30 p.m., the accused broke an idol  of God  Ganesa  in public at the Town Hall Maidan,  and  before breaking  the idol, lie made a speech, and expressly  stated that  he  intended  to  insult the  feelings  of  the  Hindu community by breaking the idol of God 1213 Ganesa.   The said act of breaking the idol was  alleged  to have  been  actively abetted by instigation and aid  by  the other  two  accused persons, who also  made  speeches.   The petition  of  complaint also alleged that the  said  act  of breaking the image of God Ganesa was done with the intention of  insulting the religious feelings of certain sections  of the Hindu community, who hold God Ganesa in veneration,  and that the acts complained of, amounted to offences under  ss. 295   and  295A  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code.    On   those allegations, the petition of complaint (dated June 5,  1953) prayed that processes might issue against the three  accused persons.  In the list of witnesses appended to the petition, figured   the  Additional  District  Magistrate,  the   Sub- Divisional  Magistrate,  the Town Sub-Inspector  of  police, Tiruchi Fort, and Sub-Magistrate, Tiruchy Town.  On the same date,  the  learned magistrate examined the  complainant  on oath.   The  complainant made statements in support  of  his allegations  in the petition of complaint.   Thereupon,  the learned  magistrate directed that the petition of  complaint

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

be  sent  to  the Circle Inspector of  police,  Trichy,  for inquiry  and report under s. 202, Criminal  Procedure  Code. On  June 26, 1953, on receipt of the police report  which  " showed that though the occurrence as alleged had taken place it was a point of law if the act of the accused would amount to  any offence ", the learned magistrate passed his  order, dismissing  the  complaint  under s.  203  of  the  Criminal Procedure  Code.   In the course of his order,  the  learned magistrate observed as follows:- "The  mud  figure of Ganesa alleged to have been  broken  by accused  is not an object held sacred or worshipped  by  any class  of  persons.   Simply because it  resembled  the  God Ganesa  held in veneration by a section it cannot become  an object  hold  sacred.   Even Ganesa idol  abandoned  by  the people  as unworthy of worship loses its sanctity and it  is no longer an object held sacred by anybody, since such given up  idols are found in several places of defilement.  It  is not  an offence if a person treads union any such  abandoned idol.  Therefore the breaking of mud figure of Ganesa 1214 does  not  amount to an offence under  Section  295,  Indian Penal Code.  " "The  speeches delivered by the accused with deliberate  and malicious  intention  of outraging religious feelings  of  a community, no doubt amount to an offence under Section  295- A, Indian Penal Code.  But for laying a complaint under this section  the sanction of the Government is necessary.   This section  has been clearly mentioned in the complaint and  it cannot  be  said it was included by  oversight.   Without  a proper   sanction   an  offence  under   this   section   is unsustainable.   I  therefore see no sufficient  ground  for proceeding  with the complaint and I dismiss the same  under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.  " The   complainant  moved  the  learned  Sessions  Judge   of Tiruchirappalli, by his petition in revision, filed on  July 9,  1953,  under ss. 435 and 436 of the  Criminal  Procedure Code,  for  setting  aside the order  of  dismissal  of  the complaint.   In the petition filed in the Court of  Session, the complainant stated that the petition was confined to the complaint  in respect of the alleged offence under  s.  295, Indian  Penal Code, and that it did not seek to  revise  the order of dismissal of the complaint in respect of an offence tinder  s.  295-A  of the Indian Penal  Code.   The  learned Sessions  Judge  dismissed the petition by  an  order  dated January  12,  1954, holding, in agreement with  the  learned magistrate, that the acts complained of did not amount to an offence  under s. 295, Indian Penal Code.  In the course  of his  order,  the learned Sessions Judge made  the  following observations:- "  I  agree  with  the  learned  Magistrate  that  the  acts complained of do not amount to an offence.  The accused, who profess  to  be religious reformers in  a  campaign  against idolatory organized a public meeting at which they broke  an earthern  image  of the God Ganesa.   The  particular  image broken  was the private property of the accused and was  not in itself an object held sacred by any class of persons; nor do  I  think  that  idol  breaking  by  a  non-believer  can reasonably  be  regarded by a believer as an insult  to  his religion ; and the ingredients of Section 295, Indian  Penal Code, are therefore not made out.  " 1215 The complainant then moved the High Court in its  revisional jurisdiction under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The  matter  was  heard by a learned single  Judge  of  that Court.  The learned single Judge also agreed with the courts

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

below  in  the  reasons given by  them  for  dismissing  the petition of complaint, and refused to order further inquiry. In  the  course of his judgment, he discussed  the  question whether a mud image of God Ganesa, came within the scope  of the words " any object held. sacred by any class of  persons "  in s. 295, and he answered the question in the  negative. In this connection, he referred to the judgment of the  Full Bench  of  the  Allahabad High Court in the  case  of  Queen Empress v. Imam Ali (1), which is directly an authority  for this  proposition only that the word ’object’ in s.  295  of the  Indian  Penal Code, does not include  animate  objects. That  case dealt with the complaint of killing a cow.   Edge C.  J.  in the course of his judgment, made  an  observation that  the  word  ’ object ’ should  be  interpreted  ejusdem generis with the words ’place of worship’, and by way of  an example  of such an inanimate object, he mentioned an  idol. That   observation,   if  anything,  is  not   against   the complainant.  The learned single Judge also referred to  the case  of  Romesh Chunder Sannyal v. Hiru Mondal  (2),  which also is not in point inasmuch as it dealt with the case of a dedicated  bull.  But the learned Judge seemed to draw  from those  cases  the inference which may be stated in  his  own words, as follows:- "  Interpreted  like that, it would mean  that  the  section would  apply  only  to cases where an idol in  a  temple  is sought to be destroyed, damaged, or defiled.  The words ’any object  held sacred by any class of persons’ even  otherwise will  apply  only  to idols in a temple  or  when  they  are carried  out  in  processions on  festival  occasions.   The object  held  sacred’ will mean only the  idols  inside  the temple  and  when  they  are taken  out  in  processions  on festival occasions.  In such circumstances as in the present case the breaking is nothing more than a doll taken from the shop. (1) (1887) I.L.R. 10 All. 150. (2) (1890) I.L.R. 117 Cal. 852. 1216 Though the intention of the respondents may be to decry  the feelings  and wound the susceptibilities of a large  section of  the people, still the intention alone is not  sufficient unless  it is carried out by an act which must  fall  within the  scope of this section.  The dolls in the  shop,  though they  may  resemble several of the deities  in  the  temple, cannot  be  held to be objects held sacred by any  class  of persons.  In modern society there are several images of  the deities  in the drawing rooms of several houses.  It  cannot for a moment be suggested that these images are objects held sacred.  These have got to be distinguished from the objects held sacred, which can only be when they are duly  installed in  a temple and from which they are subsequently taken  out in  procession  on  festival  occasions.   What  was  broken therefore  by  the respondents is nothing more than  a  doll taken  either from a shop or made for the occasion,  and  it cannot  by any means be called ail object held sacred.   The offence  is  not  made out and the  dismissal  is  therefore justified." The  petitioner  moved  the High  Court  for  the  necessary certificate  of fitness for making an appeal to this  Court. The  learned Judge, who had heard the case on  merits,  also dealt  with  this application, and refused to  certify  that this  was  a fit case for appeal to this  Court  under  Art. 134(1)(c)  of the Constitution.  The petitioner  moved  this Court and obtained the necessary special leave to appeal. It  is  regrettable that the respondents  have  remained  ex parts in this Court.  The learned counsel for the  appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

has  urged that the courts below had unduly  restricted  the meaning  of the words of s. 295, particularly, the  words  " any  object held sacred by any class of persons ", and  that the  words have been used in their fullest amplitude by  the Legislature,  in order to include any object consecrated  or otherwise, which is held sacred by any class of persons, not necessarily belonging to a different religion or creed.   In the  first place, whether any object is held sacred  by  any class of persons, must depend upon the evidence in the case, so  also  the effect of the words " with  the  intention  of thereby insulting the religion of any class 1217 of  persons or with the knowledge that any class of  persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as  an  insult to their religion." In this case,  the  facts alleged  in  the  petition,  do  not  appear  to  have  been controverted,  but  the  learned  magistrate,  as  also  the learned  Sessions  Judge and the learned Judge in  the  High Court,  have thrown out the petition of complaint solely  on the  ground  that the image of God Ganesa,  treated  by  the respondents as alleged by the complainant, could not be said to  be held sacred by any class of persons.  In the  instant case, the insult alleged was by destruction of the image  of God Ganesa.  Apart from the question of evidence, which  had yet  to be adduced, it is a well-knonwn fact that the  image of Lord Ganesa or any objective representation of a  similar kind,  is  held sacred by certain classes  of  Hindus,  even though the image may not have been consecrated. The  learned  Judge in the Court below, has given  much  too restricted a meaning to the words any object held sacred  by any  class  of  persons ", by holding  that  only  idols  in temples   or  idols  carried  in  processions  on   festival occasions,  are  meant to be included  within  those  words. There  are no such express words of limitation in s. 295  of the Indian Penal code, and in our opinion, the learned Judge has clearly misdirected himself in importing those words  of limitation.  Idols are only illustrative of those words.   A sacred  book,  like the Bible, or the Koran, or  the  Granth Saheb,  is clearly within the ambit of those general  words. If  the courts below were right in their  interpretation  of the  crucial  words  in s. 295,  the  burning  or  otherwise destroying  or  defiling such sacred books,  will  not  come within  the ’Purview of the penal statute.  In our  opinion, placing  such  a restricted interpretation on the  words  of such  general import, is against all established  canons  of construction.   Any object however trivial or  destitute  of real value in itself, if regarded as sacred by any class  of persons would come within the meaning of the penal  section. Nor is it absolutely necessary that the object, in order 1218 to be held sacred, should have been actually worshipped.  An object  may  be held sacred by a class  of  persons  without being worshipped by them.  It is clear, therefore, that  the courts  below  were rather cynical in  so  lightly  brushing aside  the  religious  susceptibilities  of  that  class  of persons  to  which the complainant claims  to  belong.   The section   has  been  intended  to  respect   the   religious susceptibilities   of   persons   of   different   religious persuasions   or  creeds.   Courts  have  got  to  be   very circumspect  in such matters, and to pay due regard  to  the feelings  and  religious emotions of  different  classes  of persons   with  different  beliefs,  irrespective   of   the consideration  whether or not they share those  beliefs,  or whether  they are rational or otherwise, in the  opinion  of the court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

As  a result of’ these considerations, it must be held  that the  courts below have erred in their interpretation of  the crucial  words of s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code.  But  the question  still remains whether, even after  expressing  our strong  disagreement with the interpretation of the  section by  the  courts below, this Court should  direct  a  further inquiry  into the complaint, which has stood  dismissed  for the  last about 5 ),ears.  The action complained of  against the accused persons, if true, was foolish, to put it mildly, but  as the case has become stale, we do not direct  further inquiry  into this complaint.  If there is a  recurrence  of such  a foolish behaviour on the part of any section of  the community, we have no doubt that those charged with the duty of  maintaining  law and order, will apply the  law  in  the sense in which we have interpreted the law.  The appeal  is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 1219