Introduction:

In Honey Balu versus Union of India and Others, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was approached through a Public Interest Litigation seeking judicial intervention against a televised broadcast aired by Aaj Tak and presented by journalist Anjana Om Kashyap, where it was alleged that the broadcast stated that Lord Maharishi Valmiki was earlier a dacoit named Ratnakar who looted travellers, and the petitioner contended that such a portrayal was derogatory, hurt religious sentiments, and defamed a highly revered spiritual figure, and therefore prayed for directions to remove the video from all platforms, compel issuance of a public apology, initiate disciplinary and legal action against the broadcaster and journalist, frame stricter guidelines to prevent such broadcasts in the future, and direct digital intermediaries like YouTube and Facebook or Instagram to disable the content, and the matter came up before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, who examined whether the PIL raised issues warranting judicial interference in matters of religious belief, mythology, and freedom of expression, and whether the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should be invoked to censor or regulate content that is claimed to be offensive to religious sentiments when the subject itself is rooted in mythological narratives rather than verifiable historical fact.

Arguments:

The petitioner argued that the broadcast was deeply offensive to followers of Maharishi Valmiki and members of the Valmiki community, asserting that there is no historical, scriptural, or literary basis to describe Maharishi Valmiki as a dacoit in his earlier life, and that portraying him as such amounted to distortion of his revered status as the author of the Ramayana and as a symbol of wisdom and spiritual enlightenment, and it was further argued that previous judicial pronouncements had recognized that there is no authoritative proof supporting the claim that Valmiki was once a dacoit, and therefore repeating such a narrative in mass media amounts to propagation of falsehood, defamation of a religious figure, and insult to the sentiments of a protected community, and on this basis the petitioner contended that the broadcast attracted offences under Sections 295A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code which deal with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings and promotion of enmity between groups, and also violated the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994, the Information Technology Rules 2021, the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority Code of Ethics, and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989, and it was submitted that representations had already been made to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, and the NBDSA on 11 October 2025, but no remedial action had been taken, thereby leaving no option but to approach the constitutional court for protection of religious dignity and social harmony, while stressing that the relief sought was not merely punitive but corrective in nature, aimed at preventing repetition of such unverified and sensitive narratives in mainstream media, on the other hand during the hearing the Court itself raised pointed questions regarding the very foundation of the petition, particularly whether the issue raised was one of history or mythology, and the Bench observed that when the subject relates to mythology, there can be multiple versions, traditions, and beliefs, and it becomes legally impossible to demand empirical proof or to declare one narrative as conclusively true and others as false, and the Court questioned how the petitioner could assert that the broadcast was incorrect when the petitioner himself was conceding that the subject was not part of established historical record, thereby highlighting the inherent difficulty in adjudicating religious narratives through constitutional litigation, and the Bench indicated that courts cannot be converted into forums for theological adjudication or moral censorship of every religious or mythological reference made in public discourse, especially when regulatory mechanisms already exist under broadcasting and digital media frameworks, and the Court further suggested that if regulatory violations were indeed made out, the appropriate remedy lay before statutory or self regulatory bodies rather than through a PIL seeking blanket censorship orders. Court’s

Judgment:

After considering the submissions and the nature of relief sought, the High Court found no substance warranting exercise of its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the PIL as withdrawn, effectively declining to issue any directions against the broadcaster or journalist, and while the order was brief, the oral observations of the Bench revealed the legal reasoning that courts cannot determine the correctness of mythological interpretations, nor can they enforce a singular version of religious belief through judicial commands, and the Court’s questioning underscored that mythology, by its nature, is not susceptible to proof in the way historical facts are, and therefore allegations of inaccuracy in mythological references cannot form a stable legal basis for constitutional intervention, and by declining to entertain the PIL, the Court implicitly reaffirmed the limits of judicial review in matters touching upon faith, belief, and narrative traditions, while also signaling that PIL jurisdiction cannot be used as a tool to seek punitive or censorial action against media houses merely on the ground that a section of society finds a particular narrative offensive, unless there is a clear and demonstrable violation of statutory law established through appropriate regulatory channels, and the dismissal also reflected judicial restraint in balancing freedom of speech with protection of religious sentiments, emphasizing that criminal law and media regulation frameworks already exist to address extreme or deliberate cases, and that courts must be cautious not to transform into supervisory editors of news content or arbiters of religious doctrine, and therefore the petition was dismissed without granting any of the extensive reliefs sought, including removal of content, public apology, disciplinary action, or issuance of new guidelines.