March 4, 2025: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that referring to someone as "Pakistani" or using terms like "Miyan-Tiyan" may be inappropriate but does not constitute a criminal offence under laws penalizing acts intended to hurt religious sentiments.

The ruling came as the apex court quashed a criminal case against 80-year-old Hari Nandan Singh, who was accused of using such remarks against an Urdu translator and acting clerk, Md Shamim Uddin, in Bokaro, Jharkhand.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma stated, "The statements made are undoubtedly in poor taste. However, they do not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant."

The case originated from an FIR registered in Bokaro, where the complainant alleged that Singh insulted him with communal slurs and used criminal force while he was performing his official duties. Based on the complaint, charges were framed under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 298 (hurting religious sentiments), Section 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), Section 353 (assault to deter a public servant from duty), and Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt).

Although Singh was initially summoned for trial, he filed an application for discharge. The magistrate, in a 2022 order, dropped the charges under Section 323 but retained those under Sections 298, 353, and 504. His appeals before the additional sessions judge and the Jharkhand High Court were also unsuccessful, leading him to approach the Supreme Court.

The apex court, in its February 11 judgment (released recently), referred to the Sajjan Kumar Vs CBI (2010) case, which provides guidelines for determining whether there is sufficient material to frame charges. Upon reviewing the FIR, the court found that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not met, leading to the quashing of charges against Singh.

This ruling sets a precedent in cases involving communal remarks, clarifying the legal distinction between offensive speech and criminal liability.