Not insulting to religious feelings, criticism part of free society: Madras High Court quashes case against Kamal Haasan for Mahabharata remarks

The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case lodged against actor and politician Kamal Haasan over a comment made during a 2017 interview wherein he made a reference to the Mahabharata while speaking on violence against women (Kamal @ Kamal Haasan @ Parthasarathy v. Aadhinatha Sundaram)..While doing so, Justice G Ilangovan opined that he did not find anything insulting to religious feelings in Haasan’s comments, adding that criticism is a part and parcel of free society..The comment is stated to have been made during a Puthiyathalaimurai TV interview in response to a question on increasing violence against women in India, particularly in the cine field. .As per the order, Haasan is stated to have commented that nothing was surprising about increasing violence against women in a country that reveres the Mahabharata, which depicts a woman being used as collateral during gambling..In allowing Haasan’s plea to quash the criminal proceedings pending before a judicial magistrate, the High Court observed:“I find nothing insulting in it to hurt the religious feelings of any one. Day and day out in the public platforms, in homes and indoors, we find a number of comments over the incidents depicted in literature, epics and other works in which, drawing analogy are more common than not. It is a basic right of everyone to make a comment and draw analogies. By that process, only arts, literatures and fine arts are developing. No citizen got any right to stall the thought process of fellow citizen simply because, he thinks it is wrong. A wrong may be right in ones own thought. But, that will not give any right of cause of action to another, to initiate criminal prosecution.”.The Court concluded that Haasan was within the limits of his free speech rights in making the remark in question.“… the facts and circumstances of the case shows that the petitioner has not exceeded the freedom speech and expression, which was conferred upon him. Moreover, criticism is part and parcel of the free society. So, I am of the considered view that this complaint is clearly an because of abuse of process of court and it is liable to be quashed … criticism is not only the human right, but also democratic right upon which the democracy thrives and society evolves to a new desired polity. Criticism, drawing analogies from the epics or literary works are not uncommon in a free Society..." the Court said..The complaint was filed by one Aadhinatha Sundaram, who alleged that Haasan’s comment had insulted the Hindu epic and hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus. .As such, he asserted that Haasan had committed an offence punishable under Section 298 (uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The police, however, filed a report stating that the offence was not attracted since Haasan had only made general comments. All the same, the trial court decided to examine the complainant and take cognisance of the offence punishable under Section 298 IPC. Summons was also issued to Haasan, prompting him to move the High Court for relief..On May 21, the High Court ruled in Haasan’s favour, taking note of the submission that for an offence to be attracted under Section 298 IPC, there must be an intentional insult.“Here, there was no intention while answering a query. If at all, it should be taken only as causal communication that took place between the Anchor and the petitioner herein,” the judge observed..The Court ruled that by no stretch of imagination could it conclude that the views expressed by Haasan were intended to insult or harm the religious feelings of the complainant..With these, among other observations, the Court allowed Haasan’s petition and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyor..Advocate Raguvaran Gopalan appeared for Haasan, whereas Advocates J Sankara Pandian and S Palani Velayutham appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]