The Supreme Court of India ruled that calling someone ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ or ‘Pakistani’ may be inappropriate but does not constitute an offense of hurting religious sentiments. This decision arose from a case where an Urdu translator accused a man of using abusive language and preventing him from fulfilling his official duties while dealing with a Right To Information application. The court dismissed the complaint, stating that while the remarks were in poor taste, they did not amount to an offense under Sections 298, 504, or 353 of the IPC, noting no provocation or assault occurred.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday determined that referring to someone as ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ or ‘Pakistani’ might be considered disrespectful, but it does not constitute an offense of insulting religious sentiments. A panel comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made this remark while concluding a case involving a man accused of labeling a government official as ‘Pakistani’.
The complaint was lodged by an Urdu translator and acting clerk in Jharkhand. The complainant stated that during a visit to the accused to provide information regarding a Right To Information (RTI) request, he was verbally abused in relation to his religion and subjected to criminal force aimed at obstructing his official responsibilities.
This incident resulted in a first information report against the individual for violations under Sections 298 (hurting religious sentiments), 504 (insult with the intent to incite a breach of peace), and 353 (assault or criminal force to prevent a public servant from performing their duties) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Rejecting a ruling from the Jharkhand High Court, the Supreme Court stated, “The appellant has been accused of offending the religious feelings of the informant by addressing him as ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani’. While these remarks are certainly in poor taste, they do not equate to an offense against the religious sentiments of the informant,” the bench elaborated.
The top court further clarified that there were no actions by the accused that could have led to a breach of the peace.
“Clearly, there was no assault or force exerted by the appellant that would fall under Section 353 IPC (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their duties),” it concluded.