Introduction:

The Mumbai Police recently justified its decision not to invoke Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to outraging religious sentiments, against BJP leaders Nitesh Rane, T Raja, and Geeta Jain. This explanation was provided to the Bombay High Court during a hearing of petitions seeking action against these leaders for allegedly making objectionable and hate speeches targeting the Muslim community at various locations in Mumbai and Mira-Bhayander in January 2023. The case, CITIZENS ACTION GROUP AND State of Karnataka & Others (WP 38401/2014), centers on the use of terms like Rohingyas, Bangladeshis, and Jihadis in the speeches, raising questions about their impact on communal harmony.

Arguments:

Senior counsel Gayatri Singh, representing the petitioners, argued that the speeches delivered by Rane and other BJP leaders were inflammatory and targeted the Muslim community. The petitioners highlighted portions of Rane’s speech in Ghatkopar, where he used derogatory terms like Rohingyas, Bangladeshis, and Jihadis. They contended that such language incited hatred against Muslims and warranted the invocation of Section 295A to address the outrage caused to religious sentiments.

The petitioners also pointed out that similar language was used in speeches at Malwani and Kashimira, where T Raja and Geeta Jain accompanied Rane. They stressed that the failure to invoke Section 295A in these instances demonstrated a selective application of the law, undermining the protection of religious sentiments. The petitioners urged the court to direct the police to include Section 295A in the FIRs filed against the BJP leaders.

Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the Mumbai Police, defended the decision not to invoke Section 295A. Venegaonkar argued that the terms Rohingyas, Bangladeshis, and Jihadis were not aimed at the Muslim community in India but referred to illegal immigrants and extremists. He emphasized that Section 295A is specifically intended to protect the religious sentiments of Indian citizens, and since the statements targeted non-Indian groups, this provision was not applicable.

Venegaonkar further clarified that Section 295A had been invoked in the FIR lodged at Mankhurd Police Station, where specific allegations were made against the Muslim community. In other FIRs, different sections of the IPC were invoked based on the nature of the speech and the context in which it was delivered. He detailed the sections applied in the FIRs at Ghatkopar, Malwani, and Kashimira, highlighting the legal basis for each.

Court’s Judgment:

The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Shyam Chandak carefully considered the arguments from both sides. The court noted the prosecutor’s assertion that Section 295A was not applicable to statements targeting non-Indian groups. It acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns about the potential for hate speech to incite violence and disrupt communal harmony.

In its judgment, the court accepted the police’s rationale for not invoking Section 295A, noting that the highest officers of the Mumbai and Mira-Bhayander police departments had made a conscious decision. The bench observed that the petitioners could seek the invocation of Section 295A at the appropriate stage, such as during the framing of charges, before a suitable forum.

Justice Mohite-Dere addressed the petitioners’ request to keep the petition pending due to the upcoming State Assembly elections in Maharashtra. The judge assured the petitioners that their liberty to seek the invocation of Section 295A would not be compromised by the procedural timeline of filing chargesheets.

The court ultimately disposed of the petition, emphasizing that while the current FIRs did not include Section 295A, the petitioners retained the right to pursue its invocation at a later stage. The bench underscored the importance of maintaining communal harmony and ensuring that legal provisions are applied fairly and appropriately.