Court Refuses FIR Against Delhi Art Gallery Over MF Husain Paintings, Says Evidence Already Preserved

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of Patiala House Court in an order dated August 19, upheld a Magistrate’s January 22 decision to treat the plea filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva as a private complaint case rather than ordering an FIR.

Sachdeva claimed that the paintings, which she viewed at the gallery on December 4, 2024, were offensive. Though she later visited the gallery with the investigating officer, the artworks had allegedly been removed. The police, in its action taken report, said the paintings were part of a private exhibition of original works, and while the canvases were subsequently seized, no cognizable offence was made out.

Rejecting Sachdeva’s plea for an FIR, the Sessions Court held that Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, could be examined through evidence already available, including the seized paintings, CCTV footage, and the complainant’s photographs.

“The Petitioner possesses direct evidence and can summon witnesses such as gallery staff or experts to prove the ingredients under Section 299 BNS. Allegations of fraud or tampering are speculative, not warranting preemptive police probe,” the Court observed.

The Court clarified that the complainant’s testimony, expert affidavits, and the inherent content of the paintings could establish the alleged outrage to religious feelings, while the issue of intent could be inferred from the exhibition’s context.

Finding no illegality in the Magistrate’s order, the Court said further police inquiry could be directed at a later stage under Section 225 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 202 CrPC) if required.

The plea, filed by Advocate Amita Sachdeva, assailed a January 23 order of the Magistrate Court that had dismissed her application under Section 175(3) CrPC, stating that no further investigation was required as all material evidence was already in the complainant’s possession or had been seized.

During the hearing in July, the Counsel for the respondents had placed on record a Delhi High Court judgment in favour of M.F. Husain. In response, the Revisionist had argued that the cited judgment pertained to Husain’s controversial painting of Bharat Mata, while the present dispute relates to allegedly obscene depictions of Hindu deities Hanuman and Ganesha, making the ruling inapplicable.

Advocate Makarand D. Adkar appearing for Sachdeva had argued that one of the artworks portrayed “our god holding a nude woman,” which amounted to an “insult” to the faith.

The DAG, however had contended that the exhibition ran for 30 days without any public objection except Sachdeva’s, and that “individual perception cannot substitute for societal concern.”

The Court had directed the revisionist to file written submissions in support of her arguments.

The original complaint arose after Sachdeva visited DAG’s Connaught Place branch on December 4, 2024, and allegedly saw the contentious artworks. She filed a police complaint on December 9 after documenting the paintings and referring to past FIRs registered against Husain for similar work.

During a follow-up visit with the investigating officer, she claimed the artworks had been removed, though the gallery denied ever displaying them. The Action Taken Report submitted by the police confirmed that two paintings, listed as Serial Nos. 6 and 10, matched the complainant’s photographs. However, the Magistrate, relying on the ATR and CCTV footage already seized, concluded that no further probe was warranted at that stage, noting that if necessary, Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) could be invoked later.

Case Title: Amita Sachdeva v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.