Introduction:

In the matter titled Raveena Tandon and Another v. State of Punjab and Another, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently passed an interim order staying the issuance of police notices against prominent Bollywood personalities — actor Raveena Tandon, filmmaker Farah Khan, and comedian Bharti Singh — who were accused of hurting the religious sentiments of the Christian community during a television show. The controversy arose from a 2019 episode of the quiz-based non-fiction show “Backbenchers” hosted by Farah Khan, wherein a statement allegedly comparing the sacred Christian term “Hallelujah” to a vulgar word led to outrage and the subsequent registration of an FIR. As the legal proceedings continued, the petitioners approached the High Court for the quashing of the FIR and protection against coercive actions by the police. The bench of Justice Manisha Batra, while adjourning the matter for further consideration to July 14, granted interim relief by staying any investigative steps under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) until the next date of hearing.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners, represented by a battery of senior and experienced advocates including Mr. Abhinav Sood, Ms. Anmol Gupta, Ms. Mehndi Singhal, Ms. Sayyam Garg, Mr. Jay K. Bhaardawaj, and Mr. Arsh Bir Bhatti, advanced a comprehensive defense emphasizing that the allegations leveled in the FIR were fundamentally misconceived and lacked the basic ingredients to constitute an offence. It was submitted that the show “Backbenchers” was purely an entertainment-based non-fiction quiz show and was not aimed at discussing or critiquing any religion or religious belief system. Counsel argued that the purported statement, which triggered the outrage, was made in a humorous and light-hearted context, devoid of any deliberate or malicious intent to insult or hurt the religious sentiments of any community. It was stressed that criminal law concerning offences related to hurting religious sentiments under Sections 295A and related provisions requires the prosecution to demonstrate that the act was done deliberately and with malicious intent, and mere inadvertent or casual remarks, particularly when made in an entertainment setting, cannot and should not attract penal consequences. Mr. Sood passionately contended that no reasonable viewer could have interpreted the remarks as amounting to an intentional denigration of Christianity or the Christian community. Furthermore, it was emphasised that the Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly warned against the misuse of criminal law to stifle freedom of speech and expression, particularly in cases involving entertainment or satire, which must be approached with a wider tolerance threshold. The petitioners, through their counsel, therefore sought quashing of the FIR and protection against harassment by way of repeated notices and summons under the garb of investigation.

On the other hand, the respondent-State, represented by Additional Advocate General Ms. Himani Arora, and private respondent No.2, represented by Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, opposed the plea for quashing. They submitted that religious sentiments of the Christian community had indeed been hurt and that public figures like actors, filmmakers, and comedians have a heightened responsibility towards the sensibilities of diverse audiences. It was contended that the utterances on the show were offensive and derogatory, and could not be dismissed as innocent jokes or casual banter. It was also submitted that the investigation was at a nascent stage and that the police were merely exercising their statutory duty under the new provisions of the BNS by issuing notices calling upon the accused persons to join the investigation. The State thus requested the Court to allow the investigation to proceed unhindered and to let the factual issues be thrashed out during trial rather than at the threshold.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Manisha Batra, after considering the submissions of both sides and examining the relevant material, noted that the central grievance of the petitioners was against the issuance of notices under Section 35 of the BNS, calling them to join the investigation. The Court took note of the earlier interim directions issued in 2022, where the State had been directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners. It was observed that even though the FIR had remained pending for a significant period, the investigating agency had now begun issuing fresh notices, thereby reigniting apprehensions of coercive action. Acknowledging the petitioners’ concerns and the need to protect individuals from undue harassment, the Court granted interim protection by staying the operation of such notices until the next date of hearing. The Court opined that in matters where the core of the allegations pertains to alleged hurt to religious sentiments arising from an entertainment program, especially where there is a serious contest on the element of intention, the courts must exercise caution before allowing the investigative machinery to cause unnecessary hardship. Further, Justice Batra agreed with the principle that criminal law should not be permitted to become a tool for suppressing freedom of speech and expression unless there is a clear and prima facie case of deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings. Given the facts and circumstances, the Court adjourned the matter for further hearing to July 14, 2025, and until then restrained the police authorities from taking any coercive steps against Raveena Tandon, Farah Khan, and Bharti Singh. Thus, the interim relief was continued, providing much-needed respite to the petitioners while keeping open the question of the maintainability of the FIR and the ultimate fate of the proceedings, to be decided after a detailed hearing.