Is it a crime to shout Jai Shri Ram inside a mosque? That’s the question the Supreme Court on Monday deliberated, at a broader level, when it wondered whether shouting religious slogans in a place of worship belonging to a different religion violated any Indian law.
A bench comprising justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta sought a response from the Karnataka government on a petition challenging the Karnataka high court’s decision to quash criminal proceedings against individuals accused of raising “Jai Shri Ram” slogans inside a mosque.
Even as the bench refrained from issuing notice without hearing the state, it wondered if a mere shouting of religious slogan could invoke charges of outraging the religious sentiments of some other community.
The case stems from a September 2023 incident at the Badriya Juma Masjid in Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka, where individuals allegedly trespassed into the mosque, raised “Jai Shri Ram” slogans, and issued threats against the Muslim community. Following a police complaint by Haydhar Ali, two individuals were arrested but later released on bail.
In September 2024, the Karnataka high court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings, ruling that shouting slogans did not amount to a criminal offence under Sections 295A (hurting religious sentiments), 447 (criminal trespass), 505 (public mischief) and 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code.
{{/usCountry}}In September 2024, the Karnataka high court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings, ruling that shouting slogans did not amount to a criminal offence under Sections 295A (hurting religious sentiments), 447 (criminal trespass), 505 (public mischief) and 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code.
{{/usCountry}}Ali challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, contending that the high court prematurely dismissed the case without allowing a full investigation.
During Monday’s hearing, senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the high court’s decision undermined due process. “The FIR cannot be an encyclopedia, and the police should have been allowed to complete their investigation,” stated Kamat, emphasising the gravity of entering a mosque and shouting religious slogans.
The bench questioned whether such actions, by themselves, could amount to a crime. “How is shouting a religious slogan a crime? What improvement can you make to your FIR? The persons have not been identified in this case,” remarked the bench.
Kamat countered, describing the act as “hooliganism” and asserting that it amounted to criminal trespass and incitement, which could disrupt communal harmony.
The court then asked how the accused were identified, highlighting gaps in the evidence against them. “Seeing the accused near the mosque does not mean the same persons entered it. What material is there against them?” the bench inquired.
The petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that the identification was a matter for the state to establish and urged the court to issue notice to the Karnataka government. The bench, however, opted to hear the state’s response before proceeding further, scheduling the case for January.
In his appeal filed through advocate Javedur Rahman, Ali contended that the high court erred in quashing the proceedings before the police had completed their investigation, and before the full evidence could be presented to the court.
It further argued that trespassing is a criminal offence, and raising Jai Shri Ram slogans inside a mosque could incite communal tension, which is also a punishable offence under law. The petitioner emphasised that the incident occurred within a mosque, coupled with threats to Muslims’ safety, and that the high court should have allowed the police to finish their investigation rather than issuing an interim order .