Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against the faculty members and students of Jain Centre of Management Studies, holding that the skit performed at Jain University Youth Fest-2023, allegedly insulting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Dalits, was a form of satire and entertainment protected under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The court, presided over by Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, noted: “the skit / short play performed by the petitioner was in the nature of satire / entertainment, which is constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.”

The court ruled that the necessary ingredients constituting alleged offences under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups), 149 (unlawful assembly), 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 (IPC) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were absent in the complaint.

The petitioners, faculty members (accused 2 and 3) and students (accused 4 to 10), participated in Jain University Youth Fest-2023, held at NIMHANS Convention Centre. As part of the event, the students performed a satirical skit to showcase their acting skills. A video recording of the performance was used as the basis for a complaint filed by the second respondent on February 10, 2023.

The petitioners argued that the performance was a work of satire, intended for entertainment, and not aimed at harming any community. It was contended that the FIR was not filed by a member of the SC/ST community and that there was no intent to insult or intimidate anyone within public view. The petitioners relied on precedents, including Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), where the Supreme Court held that allegations must specifically show intent to humiliate an SC/ST member in a public setting.

The State, opposing the petition, argued that the skit could incite communal disharmony and that its content was offensive.

The court, however, found no material evidence to support the claim that the performance promoted enmity or hatred between communities.  “The impugned FIR has not been lodged by a person who is the member of the SC/ST community and there is no material to indicate that the petitioners had any specific intention to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST community in any place within a public view…FIR clearly does not meet or satisfy the basic ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner,” the court stated.

The court observed that the fundamental requirement for the alleged offences is the presence of intentional insult, intimidation, or incitement to violence. However, it found that the skit was performed purely for entertainment and lacked any intention to harm or humiliate any community.

Relying on the precedent in Indibly Creative (P) Ltd. V. State of West Bengal (2020), the court noted: “In questioning prevailing social values and popular cultures, every art form seeks to espouse a vision. Underlying the vision of the artist is a desire to find a new meaning for existence. The artist, in an effort to do so, is entitled to the fullest liberty and freedom to critique and criticise.”

Expressing that contemporary society is witnessing a growing intolerance, the court cautioned that organized groups and vested interests pose a serious threat to the fundamental right to free speech and expression. “If the right of the playwright, artist, musician or actor were to be subjected to popular notions of what is or is not acceptable, the right itself and its guarantee under the Constitution would be rendered illusory,” the court remarked.

Emphasising that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law, the court quashed the FIR.

 

Cause Title: Naima Akthar Nagaria and Ors v State of Karnataka and Anr [CRL.P No. 2845 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 2064 of 2023]