MF Husain painting row: Delhi HC dismisses plea seeking FIR against art gallery

The DAG’s lawyer submitted that the allegations raised were misconceived, the allegedly offensive paintings had already been seized

New Delhi

A bench of justice Amit Mahajan released the order on Thursday, while dealing with a plea filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva against a trial court’s August 19 order, refusing to order police probe. (Representative photo)

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking an FIR against the Delhi Art Gallery (DAG) for displaying two allegedly objectionable paintings by Padma awardee MF Husain, concluding that the same was being sought to conduct a fishing and roving inquiry.

A bench of justice Amit Mahajan released the order on Thursday, while dealing with a plea filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva against a trial court’s August 19 order, refusing to order police probe.

Sachdeva claimed she photographed the “offensive” paintings during a visit to DAG in December 2024. She said that despite approaching the police, no FIR was lodged, and during a later visit, she found the paintings had been removed.

In her petition, Sachdeva contended that the order was unsustainable and erroneous, as it overlooks the inaction on the part of the police. She further submitted that the display of the alleged offensive paintings at the gallery triggered widespread outrage on social media platforms, and thus, the registration of FIR was mandatory.

Dismissing the petition, the bench in its order passed on Wednesday remarked that police investigation for collection of evidence in light of Delhi Police’s action taken report, was minimal as Sachdeva was well-equipped to facilitate the presentation of evidence on her own behalf.

“It is apparent that the petitioner is merely seeking the assistance of the police to conduct a fishing and roving inquiry. As is evident from the above narration of facts and the Action Taken Report filed by the Police before the learned ASJ, all pertinent facts and evidence are within the petitioner’s reach, and she can present such information during the inquiry conducted by the learned Trial Court pursuant to Section 223 of the BNSS.”

The court also rejected Sachdeva’s argument that filing an FIR was mandatory on the grounds that the paintings allegedly hurt the religious sentiments of millions in the Sanatan community, calling the contention meritless. “Undisputedly, any act that genuinely offends religious sentiments through visual or artistic depictions is a serious and sensitive matter. However, in the present case, the learned Trial Court is already seized of the matter, and will duly examine whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are satisfied. If, during the course of the trial, the petitioner is able to substantiate her allegations, the law will take its course, and appropriate action will be taken against the accused persons,” the court said.