Read Time: 06 minutes
The court noted that the complaint did not allege outrage over the song’s lyrics but objected to dancing with scantily dressed women and kissing scenes. However, the court emphasized that Kher was neither the producer nor the director and merely performed his assigned role, lacking deliberate intent to offend religious sentiments.
Further citing the famous author and historian A G Noorani, the court reiterated, “Intolerance of dissent from the orthodoxy of the day has been the bane of Indian society for centuries”.
The Bombay High Court, recently, quashed a case against Kailash Kher for hurting religious sentiments noting that the lyrics of the songs are nothing but praises of Lord Shiva. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Shyam C. Chandak held, “The lyrics of the song sung by the Petitioner is nothing but praise of Lord Shiva and the attributes of his mighty character and nothing else”.
Kailash Kher, a renowned singer, approached the court seeking to quash a case filed against him by Narinder Makkar, a resident of Ludhiana. The complaint, lodged before the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, accused Kher of offences under Sections 295A and 298 of the IPC. The complainant, a devotee of Lord Shiva, purchased a CD of the album ‘Kailasa Jhoomo Re’ and found the song ‘Babam Bam’ objectionable. He sought legal action against Kher and Sony Music Entertainment Pvt Ltd.
The complainant alleged that in Babam Bam song ‘the accused no.1 (Kher) is singing the song of SHIV SHANKAR with a girl wearing clumsy and very short clothes. In this song a girl and boy are also kissing each other & vulgarity is being shown’.
The court observed that Section 295A of the IPC required a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens through words, signs, or visible representations. To attract the offense under this provision, the court emphasized that, a deliberate attempt had to be demonstrated. In this case, Kher merely sang a song in praise of Lord Shiva, which lacked the necessary intent.
The court noted that the complainant’s grievance was based on Kher dancing with scantily dressed women and scenes depicting kissing, which was considered vulgar. However, the court emphasized that Kher was merely the singer and was neither the producer nor the director of the video.
“Merely because he is singing the song being surrounded by a large number of people, who have independently performed the role assigned to them by the Director, according to us the ingredients of Section 295 A of IPC are not made out”, the court outlined.
The court reiterated, “every action which may be to the dislike of a class of people may not necessarily lead to outraging religious sentiments… and would not cover an act which is not intended to outrage the religious feelings”. Citing the case of Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP [AIR 1957 SC 620], the court highlighted that Section 295A penalized only aggravated insults with deliberate and malicious intent. A mere display of objectionable content, without such intent, would not constitute an offense under the provision.
The court noted that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case under Section 298 of the IPC, as there was no evidence of Kher deliberately intending to wound religious feelings. The song merely praised Lord Shiva. Therefore, the court allowed the petition filed by Kher and quashed the case.
For Petitioner: Advocates Ashok M Saraogi, Priti Rao, and Amit DubeyFor Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor D.S. KrishnaiyarCase Title: Kailash v State (2025:BHC-AS:11643-DB)
Please Login or Register
