Bombay High Court Condemns Rising Religious Intolerance: Quashes FIR in 'Vande Mataram' Case and Urges for Greater Respect

The Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench recently made headlines with its ruling on a high-profile case involving alleged religious intolerance. On July 24, 2024, the court quashed an FIR against two individuals—Pramod Shendre, an army man, and Dr. Subhash Waghe—who were accused of outraging religious sentiments and criminal intimidation. The court's decision and observations highlighted broader concerns about rising religious sensitivities and the state of communal harmony in India.

The FIR, filed by Shahbaz Siddiqui in August 2017, accused Shendre and Waghe of posting provocative messages in a WhatsApp group and allegedly telling members who did not chant "Vande Mataram" to "go to Pakistan." The case involved charges under Sections 295A (outraging religious sentiments), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 504 (intentional insult to breach peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In its judgment, the division bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Vrushali Joshi expressed dismay over the increasing tendency of individuals to assert the supremacy of their own religions. The court emphasized that India, as a secular democracy, requires mutual respect and tolerance among different communities. It lamented the heightened sensitivities surrounding religious beliefs and criticized the trend of showcasing one’s religion as supreme.

The court scrutinized the FIR and the investigation process, noting several procedural flaws. It pointed out that the police had only recorded statements from witnesses belonging to the same community as the complainant and had failed to investigate key aspects such as the identity of the WhatsApp group admin. The bench also highlighted that the messages in question were encrypted, raising questions about whether they could be considered an offence under Section 295A.

The judgment concluded that the FIR did not meet the criteria for the alleged offences and observed that the complainant’s actions might have instigated the altercations. The bench ruled that the statements and evidence presented did not substantiate the claims of religious outrage or criminal intimidation.

The ruling underscores the need for a balanced approach to religious issues and cautions against the dangers of excessive religious sensitivities. It serves as a reminder of India’s secular ethos and the importance of respecting diverse beliefs while addressing legal complaints with due diligence.