New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that calling someone ‘miyan-tiyan’ or referring to them as ‘Pakistani’ does not automatically amount to the offence of hurting religious sentiments under Indian law. The ruling came in the context of a case where such remarks were alleged to have insulted religious feelings.
A Bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that such terms, while insensitive or inappropriate in certain contexts, do not inherently target religion or religious beliefs in a manner required to constitute an offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — a section that penalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Context of the Case
The case originated from a dispute where one party used the terms “miyan-tiyan” and “Pakistani” to describe the other. The complainant argued that these remarks were meant to hurt religious sentiments and foster communal disharmony.
However, the apex court clarified that while such comments may be derogatory, they do not amount to a direct attack on religious beliefs or practices, which is the threshold required for invoking Section 295A.
Free Speech vs Religious Sensitivities
The judgment once again brings into focus the delicate balance between free speech and protection of religious sentiments in India’s diverse social fabric.
“Every offensive or insulting statement does not automatically become a criminal offence under laws meant to protect religion,” the court observed, urging citizens to exercise restraint in speech while also discouraging misuse of legal provisions to settle personal scores.
What the Law Says
- Section 295A of IPC: Deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
- Supreme Court’s Interpretation: For Section 295A to apply, there must be a deliberate, calculated intent to insult religious beliefs — mere casual or derogatory remarks, even if offensive, do not automatically qualify.
Legal Experts React
Legal commentators welcomed the nuanced stance of the court, stating that not every derogatory comment should lead to criminal prosecution, especially when religious sentiments are not the primary target.
“This ruling protects free expression, while retaining safeguards against deliberate hate speech — it is a balanced approach,” said a senior advocate.
Conclusion
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between casual insults and deliberate religious provocation, underlining that the criminal law cannot be weaponized for every offensive remark — a significant clarification amid India’s often polarized public discourse.
