"Hindutva is not a religion and insult to it cannot be regarded as a religious insult", advocate Dr Abhinav Chandrachud submitted before the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, while appearing for the petitioner in a case seeking quashing of two First Information Reports (FIRs) against a law student. .These submissions were made before Justice Suraj Govidaraj, who was hearing two petitions seeking to quash two FIRs registered against a law student. .She was charged under Section 295-A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and Section 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly holding an objectionable placard during a protest held against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at the Government Arts College, Bengaluru..Arguing before the Court, Dr Chandrachud went on to contend that when somebody insults or uses abusive language against 'Hindutva', it is not an insult to a religion but an insult to a political philosophy. Therefore, an offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, he submitted..With regard to to the alleged offence committed under Section 153-A, Chandrachud submitted that there must be two communities involved. .In the instant case, there are no two communities involved; a mere insult to one community will not attract the offence under Section 153-A IPC, he argued. ."No offence under section 153-A and 295-A is made out even if the contents of the FIR are accepted in its entirety", he argued..The two FIRs in the instant cases was based on a complaint registered by the Principal of the College, who alleged that a few students had unlawfully assembled in the college premises in December 2019 to protest against the CAA. .As per the complaint, some individuals were displaying a placard with the text "Fuck Hindutva". The FIR alleged that this message amounted to promoting enmity between communities and religious insult so as to invoke Sections 153A and 295A IPC..The petitioner was earlier granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court on Janaury 31, 2020. Later, she approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIRs. .The petition says that though the Principal has named some students who were allegedly holding the placards, the petitioner's name has not been mentioned in the FIR. .It is stated that Sections 143 and 149 of the IPC were invoked for violating orders issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the State in December. However, the said Section 144 order was later struck down by the High Court as illegal. .The petition further states that even if all the allegations in the FIRs are considered to be true, no cognizable offence can be said to have been made out..It was submitted that the said FIRs against the the petitioner amounts to an "abuse of process" as the petitioner was not present at the site of the protests. It is claimed that on December 20, 2019, on the day of the protest, the petitioner was in the campus organizing another event..The Court went on to post the matter for further hearing on December 21, after Dr Chandrauchd sought a short adjournment to place on record the citations relied by him.