Delhi High Court junks plea seeking FIR against art gallery over display of MF Husain paintings

The Delhi High Court recently declined to order the registration of a first information report (FIR) against a Delhi Art Gallery for displaying paintings created by artist Late MF Husain that were allegedly offensive to Hindu sentiments [Amita Sachdeva v. State NCT of Delhi and ors]..Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the matter is already before the trial court, which had decided to treat it as a complaint case instead of ordering the registration of an FIR right away. The High Court observed that the trial court can examine the issue in due course. It also noted that the paintings complained of were already in police custody and that CCTV footage and other such relevant materials had also been seized by the police. It, therefore, declined to interfere with a sessions court order that had upheld the trial court's decision to treat the matter as a complaint case for now. "At this stage, no specialised police investigation is necessary to ascertain the existence of the offence. Questions of authenticity, intent, or possible tampering can be considered at the time of trial, and if any further assistance is required, the learned Trial Court retains the power under Section 225 of the BNSS to requisition police aid," the High Court stated..The petition before the Court was filed by a lawyer named Amita Sachdeva, who claimed that an art gallery in Delhi had displayed two MF Husain paintings that depicted Hindu deities in an offensive manner. Sachdeva had seen the paintings while on a visit to the gallery on December 4, 2024, to view an exhibit titled “Hussain: The Timeless Modernist." She found two displayed paintings to be offensive and lodged a complaint with the police.When she visited the gallery with the investigation officer on December 10, the paintings had allegedly been removed. She then approached a trial court seeking directions for an FIR against the art gallery and the preservation of evidence..An action taken report by the police said that the paintings in question were displayed as part of an exhibition held in a private space. The paintings were only to display the original work of the artists, it added.Following a court order, the paintings were also seized. However, the Police said that no cognizable offence could be ascertained.In January this year, a trial court rejected Sachdeva's plea to order a further police investigation into the matter and to register an FIR. The trial court decided to treat it as a complaint case instead. In August this year, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler dismissed a challenge to this trial court order and refused to order further police investigation as sought, considering that key evidence in the case had already been seized. .This turn of events was challenged before the High Court by Sachdeva. However, the High Court too refused to order further police investigation, observing that Sachdeva was trying to conduct a fishing and roving inquiry by seeking a police investigation."It is apparent that the petitioner is merely seeking the assistance of the police to conduct a fishing and roving inquiry," the Court stated. The Court concluded that there was no extraordinary case made out for it to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita (BNSS) to interfere with the sessions court order or to order an FIR."There is no indication of any miscarriage of justice or legal irregularity in the proceedings undertaken by the two lower courts, and the petitioner has not pointed out any such deficiencies," the Court held, while dismissing Sachdeva's plea. .Senior Advocate Markand Adkar with advocates Vikram Kumar, Yadavendra Saxena, Mayank Dwivedi and Abhinav Kumar represented Amita Sachdeva (petitioner), who also appeared in person.Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Kumar appeared for the State.Senior Advocate Madhav Khurana and advocates Shivam Batra, Rony John, Piyush Swami, Teeksh and Ibrahim represented the Delhi Art Gallery..[Read order]