E-Paper
‘Not religious offence’: Rajasthan HC junks plea against University question on Ram Janamboomi verdict
The high court said that questioning or critically analysing judicial decisions is an essential part of legal education.
The Rajasthan high court has dismissed a petition filed by a law student against the inclusion of a question on the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict in a university examination, saying that academic and personal opinions on legal judgments do not amount to religious offences unless driven by malicious intent.
Making the observation on Thursday, justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said that questioning or critically analysing judicial decisions is an essential part of legal education and does not violate Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of deliberate provocation.
"An academic or personal opinion expressed by a student, teacher, or scholar on a legal judgment, even one involving sensitive issues, cannot be equated with any religious attack," justice Dhand said.
The court further remarked that such expressions, when done constructively and reasonably, constitute a positive exercise in legal reasoning and critical analysis.
The petitioner, Anuj Kumar Kumawat, objected to a passage in the question paper of the Legal Languages, Legal Writing and General English exam conducted by Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University on August 12, 2024, and said it was inflammatory and hurt religious sentiments.
He further alleged that the question violated Section 295A of the IPC and Article 25 of the Constitution, seeking action against those responsible, removal of the content, and a public apology.
The court rejected these demands, saying: “Challenging a certain portion of a question paper solely on the ground that it hurts religious sentiments under Section 295A IPC is not legally sustainable/tenable unless it is established that the content was included in the question paper with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.”
Justice Dhand cautioned against curbing academic freedom and the autonomy of educational institutions merely based on subjective interpretations, noting that no other student had raised any objection to the exam content.
"Law must be governed by reasons and not by sentiments," he said.
The Court emphasised that while Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, the right is not absolute and must be balanced with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
Nevertheless, it reiterated that “fair criticism of a verdict is permissible to some extent, provided it is founded on reasons and not driven by malice and such criticism must not be contemptuous, offensive, defamatory or derogatory in nature.”
Finding the petition "misconceived" and lacking merit, the Court dismissed it along with all pending applications
