Allahabad HC Probes Inmate Sant Rampal's Alleged Jail-Based Publishing Operation

Lucknow, India – The Allahabad High Court has intensified its scrutiny into the perplexing case of how a convicted, self-styled godman, Sant Rampal, is allegedly authoring and distributing literature deemed offensive to Hindu deities from within the confines of Hisar Central Jail. The Lucknow Bench has now directly summoned the Jailer of the Haryana-based prison to provide an explanation, signaling a deeper probe into potential administrative lapses and the scope of an inmate's privileges.

A division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar issued the directive while hearing a writ petition filed by the 'Hindu Front for Justice'. The plea seeks a comprehensive ban and forfeiture of books and online materials attributed to Rampal, arguing they maliciously outrage the religious feelings of Hindus. The case brings to the forefront a complex interplay of freedom of speech, hate speech jurisprudence, state accountability, and the administrative oversight of high-profile inmates.

The court's latest order underscores its growing dissatisfaction with the State's handling of the matter, demanding a more robust response and accountability from both law enforcement and prison authorities.

The Core Allegations: Offensive Content and Systemic Inaction

The petition, filed through Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, presents a detailed case against Sant Rampal and his associated organizations. It alleges that a series of books, including Jeene Ki Raah , Gyaan Ganga , and Garima Geeta Ki , are being distributed free of cost with the "deliberately and malicious intention to outrage the religious feeling of Sanatani Hindus."

The petitioners claim these publications contain "grossly offensive and provocative language" and portray Hindu Gods and Goddesses in a "very 'ugly' and 'shameful'" manner. The plea submits that such content is not merely an expression of alternative belief but a calculated affront to cultural heritage and a tool to sow discord.

“…the graphic depiction of such content is an affront to India's Cultural heritage we seek to preserve…the narrative unfolds with manipulative and exploitative literature depiction to achieve personal gain, such contents prepare toxic narrative in unacceptable contributing to the erosion of moral and ethical standards,” the plea states.

Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the dissemination of this material via electronic platforms, including social media sites like X Corp. (formerly Twitter) and Google LLC properties, is designed to promote disharmony and enmity between religious communities, thereby threatening public peace. Despite numerous representations to state authorities, the plea contends that no meaningful action has been taken to curb the circulation of these materials.

A Legal Framework Under the New Sanhitas

A notable aspect of the petition is its reliance on the newly enacted criminal laws. The petitioners have invoked several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), positioning this case as an early test for their application in matters of hate speech and public order.

The plea cites Sections 196, 197 (promoting enmity), 294, 295 (obscenity), and 299, 302 (offences against religion) of the BNS. Additionally, it invokes Sections 67A and 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning the publication of obscene and sexually explicit material in electronic form, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

The legal strategy hinges on Section 98 of the BNSS, the successor to Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This provision empowers the state government to declare certain publications forfeited if they appear to contain matter punishable under specific sections of the penal code. The High Court had previously, on July 10, 2024, directed the state to clarify what action, if any, had been initiated under this provision.

Court's Dissatisfaction and Heightened Scrutiny

The recent hearing revealed the court's impatience with the state's response. The newly constituted bench deemed the affidavit filed by the State (Respondent No. 1) as incomplete and unsatisfactory. This prompted the court to demand a more comprehensive "supplementary affidavit" to be filed by a senior officer, no lower than the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, by October 28, 2025.

This affidavit must detail the steps taken to locate and seize the books in question, as well as the measures pursued to remove the allegedly offending content from internet platforms, pursuant to the court's earlier orders.

The most significant development, however, is the impleadment of the Jailer of Hisar Central Jail-2 as respondent no. 13. This move shifts a portion of the legal focus directly onto the prison administration. The court's demand for an explanation from the Jailer raises critical questions:

• Inmate Privileges: What are the specific rules governing an inmate's ability to engage in creative or intellectual work like writing?
• External Communication: How could a publishing and distribution network be managed from inside a jail?
• Content Scrutiny: Does the jail administration have mechanisms to review outgoing materials from inmates, especially those with a history of inciting public order issues?

Sant Rampal, who has been incarcerated for over eight years, is not an ordinary inmate. He faces serious charges, including murder and waging war against the state, stemming from a violent standoff at his ashram in 2014. The ability of such a high-profile prisoner to allegedly run a propaganda campaign from behind bars presents a serious challenge to the penal system's integrity.

The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on November 4, 2025. The responses from the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Hisar Jailer will be pivotal in determining the future direction of a case that tests the boundaries of religious freedom, the state's duty to maintain communal harmony, and the fundamental efficacy of its prison and law enforcement machinery.