A Delhi Court on Saturday granted bail to Delhi University Professor Ratan Lal, who was arrested for his controversial “Shivling” Facebook post related to the ongoing court case on the Gyanvapi Mosque [State v. Ratan Lal].
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Siddhartha Malik underlined that India was a country of more than 130 crore people and any subject can have 130 crore different views and perceptions.
The judge also shared that being a “proud follower of Hindu religion,” he found the post “distasteful” and an “unnecessary” comment on a controversial topic.
However, the Court was of the opinion that Lal’s post may not incite feelings of hatred.
“For another person, the same post can appear to be shameful but may not incite the feeling of hatred towards another community. Similarly, different persons may consider the post differently without being enraged and may in fact feel sorry for the accused to have made an unwanted comment without considering the repercussions,” the order held.
The order also highlighted that the feeling of hurt felt by an individual cannot represent the entire group or community.
“Any such complaint regarding hurt feeling has to be seen in its context considering the entire spectrum of facts/circumstances,” it underlined.
Lal was booked under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) and 295 A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the Indian Penal Code for a Facebook post.
The post was stated to be speculative in nature with regard to a structure or a symbol that, as of now, was not in the public domain.
“The post of the accused may appear to be a failed attempt at satire regarding a controversial subject which had backfired which, resulting in the present FIR,” noted the Court.
It also observed that the Indian civilisation is one of the oldest in the world and known to be tolerant and accepting to all religions.
“The presence of absence of intention to create animosity/hatred by words is subjective nature as is the perception of the recipient who reads/hears a statement,” the order stated.
The Court added,
“The feeling of hurt felt by an individual cannot represent the entire group or community and any such complaint regarding hurt feeling has to be seen in its context considering the entire spectrum of facts/circumstances.”
Advocates Amit Srivastava, Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Dr Satya Prakash, Sanjay K Chhadha, ND Pancholi, Rahul, Mukesh, Deepak Jakhar and Karish Kumar Mehra appeared for Lal.
Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Kumar Srivastava represented the State.
Source Link
