The Gujarat High Court has put an end to criminal proceedings against a Surat textile trader who was accused of hurting religious sentiments by selling sarees carrying images of Gautam Buddha on their pallus.
Justice PM Raval held that the mere presence of a religious or revered figure on a commercial textile product cannot, by itself, establish the offence of deliberately outraging religious feelings under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
The case arose from a complaint lodged in Surat in 2017 by the president of the Samast Yuva Ambedkar Sama. It was alleged that traders were selling sarees and other fabrics featuring printed images of Lord Buddha and that placing the images on such garments was disrespectful and intended to offend members of the Ambedkar community.
The trader, Bharatbhai Hirjibhai Shankar, subsequently approached the High Court seeking to have the criminal proceedings set aside.
Allowing the plea, the Court stressed that Section 295A requires more than an act that someone may find objectionable or offensive. There must be material indicating a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings.
The Court observed that the trader was engaged in the ordinary business of selling sarees and dress materials according to market trends and designs. There was nothing before the Court to indicate that the products were marketed with the purpose of insulting Buddha or denigrating Buddhist beliefs.
The judgment drew a line between commercial use of religious imagery and conduct that crosses into intentional religious insult.
“Commercial activity involving religious motifs” cannot be treated as a criminal offence under Section 295A in the absence of inflammatory conduct, overtly insulting behaviour or demonstrable intent to denigrate a religious belief, the Court held.
It further cautioned that treating the sale of such textile products as criminal merely because a religious image appears on a particular part of the garment would effectively stretch the penal provision beyond its intended limits.
Finding that the essential element of deliberate and malicious intent was missing, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Shankar.
Advocate Rajesh K Kanani appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor KM Antani represented the State. Advocate NK Majmudar appeared for another respondent.