Bombay HC quashes FIRs against Shekhar Suman and Bharti Singh for the words “Ya Allah, Rasgulla, Dahi Bhalla”: Read what the court said about invoking criminal law

The Bombay High Court recently quashed the FIRs filed against actor Shekhar Suman and comedian Bharti Singh for a joke made during a popular comedy show, “Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo”, aired on Sony TV in November 2010. The decision passed on Wednesday (29th April) came during the hearing on the petitions filed by Suman and Singh, seeking the quashing of the FIR filed against them. A Bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that no offence was made out against the petitioners under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, as alleged in the FIR. Notably, the FIRs were lodged in November 2010, under Section 295-A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, based on a complaint filed by one Mohd Imran Dadani Rasabi, owner of the Raza Academy, at the Pydhonie Police Station. The FIRs arose from Episode No.18 of the show, in which Bharti Singh performed a character styled as “Umrao Jaan”, inspired by the title character from the Hindi movie of the same name. Her co-performer enacted a character of a police officer inspired by a role from the Hindi film ‘Dabangg’. During the performance, Singh uttered a joke containing the words “Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!”. The use of the word ‘Allah’ irked the complainant, who submitted a complaint against Bharti Singh, along with Shekhar Suman, who was participating in the show as a judge. Criminal law should not be invoked in a casual manner: HC Bharti Singh and Shekhar Suman approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the validity of the FIRs. The High Court slashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the dual grounds of merit of the case and the legality of the criminal procedure. Criticising the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, the High Court cautioned that the criminal law should not be invoked in a “casual manner”. “I am also mindful of the fact that criminal law should not be invoked in a casual manner against an artist or a programme judge merely because somebody feels insulted by a performance viewed out of context. There must be deliberate targeting of religious feeling. There must be a malicious object. There must be sufficient material to connect the petitioner with that object. On the present record, the connection is missing,” Justice Borkar remarked. In arriving at the decision, the court examined the facts of the case to ascertain the nature of the television show, the intent of the artists in making the joke, and the presence of elements required for constituting the alleged offence. After hearing the submissions of the parties, the High Court concluded that the necessary elements of deliberate and malicious conduct required to constitute the offence were not present. The court also held that the manner in which the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners also suffered a legal flaw. The joke was not made with malicious intent: HC In the order quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioners, the High Court noted that the joke, containing the expressions “Ya Allah! Rasgulla! DahiBhalla!”, was made during a light entertainment programme and was not made with malicious intent. The court said that the words were uttered to rhyme and give a comic effect, and there was no premeditation. “In the present case, from the complaint and from the episode as described, I do not find any material showing such deliberate or malicious intention on the part of either Petitioner. The performance appears to have been made in a theatrical manner, with the object of entertainment. That does not by itself create criminality,” the judge stated. The High Court took notice of the fact that the show was telecast as a family entertainment programme and had been running for a considerable time. Examining the format of the case, the High Court also noted that performers and judges in such programmes are supposed to create laughter while following the script of the episode. “The Petitioners say that the performers and judges in such a programme are meant to create laughter. I find this to be a relevant surrounding circumstance. A judge in a comedy show does not stand in the position of a speaker making a declaration against a religious group. A performing artist on such a stage also performs according to the script of the episode,” the court asserted. The show is meant for humour, and the artists follow the script: HC Accepting the petitioners’ submissions, the court agreed that the programme was a light-hearted show involving comic exchanges by performers meant to create humour. “The learned counsel submits that no reasonable reading of the episode would show a deliberate design to insult any religion or religious belief. This submission has substance. The Court cannot ignore the context of the programme. A comedy show is not judged by the same standards as a doctrinal speech or a political statement. A performance of this nature is to be read as a whole, and not by selecting stray expressions from it,” the court said. Criminal proceedings initiated without mandatory sanction: HC The High Court reminded that for taking cognisance of an offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, a previous sanction of the state government is mandatory under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. “The provision is mandatory. It is intended to prevent abuse of prosecution in matters of sensitive public expression. Here, the record as placed before me does not show that such a sanction was obtained before the matter was proceeded with in the manner in which it was done. This omission goes to the legality of the prosecution,” the court pointed out. “When the complaint itself does not disclose the ingredients and when the mandatory sanction is not shown, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of process,” the Court noted, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.