The Delhi High Court refused to quash an FIR against Dr. Ratan Lal, an assistant professor of history at Delhi University’s Hindu College, over a social media post he made in 2022 regarding the claims of a ‘Shivling’ being found at the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi. The post became a target of hate campaigns by Hindutva groups.
The FIR was filed in May 2022 following Dr. Lal’s remarks on the purported Shivling discovered in the mosque. In his post, he had criticised Hindutva campaigns surrounding the issue.
The professor was booked under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Lal was arrested on May 20, 2022, and released on bail the following day.
In its detailed order, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, criticised the professor for his public remarks, stating, “Prima facie, the petitioner has created disturbance of the harmony of the society… no person being a professor, teacher, or an intellectual has the right to make such type of comments, tweets, or posts. Freedom of speech and expression or any type of freedom is not absolute.”
“An intellectual person is instrumental in guiding others and the society at large and thus, he should be more conscious while giving such types of statements… Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC balance the right to free speech with the need to maintain social harmony,” the order read.
The court observed that public statements, especially from an academic or intellectual, must not interfere with sensitive and unresolved legal matters, as they carry the potential to mislead or incite unrest.
Dr. Lal’s counsel argued that the social media post was from a historian’s perspective and not intended to incite unrest or disturb societal harmony. “Being a historian and an intellectual person, [he] had expressed his thoughts without any intent,” Lal’s legal team contended.
The prosecution maintained that the post was deliberately provocative, aiming to hurt the sentiments of Lord Shiva’s devotees and the larger community. “There is a clear intent to hurt sentiments of the believers of Lord Shiva and the society at large,” the prosecution argued.
