In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed an FIR filed by Madhya Pradesh police regarding an allegedly Hinduphobic and anti-national book housed in the library of Government New Law College, Indore. The FIR had targeted the book "Collective Violence and Criminal Justice System" by Farhat Khan.
Justice B.R. Gavai, leading a two-judge bench, dismissed the FIR as "absurd." The bench, which also included Justice Sandeep Mehta, stated, “Perusal of the FIR would reveal that the FIR is nothing but an absurdity… The FIR taken on its face value does not disclose the ingredients of any of the offences.” This strong language underscores the Court's view that the allegations lacked substantive merit.
The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the FIR, highlighting that continuing with the proceedings would constitute an abuse of legal process and result in a miscarriage of justice. “This is a fit case where the court would exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 and close the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and miscarriage of justice,” the bench declared.
The case began when a complaint was lodged by an LLM student of the college, leading to the registration of an FIR against Farhat Khan, the book’s publisher Amar Law Publications, college principal Inam Ur Rahman, and assistant professor Mirza Mojiz Baig. The accused were charged under sections 153A (promoting enmity on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence) and 295A (malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class) of the Indian Penal Code, among other provisions.
The ruling is a crucial precedent in the context of academic freedom and the limitations of criminal charges based on allegations of promoting enmity or offending religious sentiments. The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the FIR emphasizes the importance of a thorough judicial review to avoid frivolous or unwarranted legal actions that could stifle intellectual and academic discourse.
This case has garnered significant attention due to its implications for freedom of expression and the potential misuse of legal provisions to target academic works. The decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in protecting individual rights against overreach by law enforcement agencies.