Artistic Expression vs Religious Sentiments: Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Proceedings Against Actor Rajkummar Rao in 'Behan Hogi Teri' FIR

P&H High Court Stays Proceedings Against Rajkummar Rao in FIR Over Film 'Behan Hogi Teri'

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted interim relief to acclaimed actor Rajkummar Rao, staying all trial court proceedings against him in a 2017 case where he was accused of hurting religious sentiments in the film "Behan Hogi Teri." The court is examining a petition filed by the actor seeking to quash the FIR registered in Jalandhar, Punjab.

Case Background

The case originates from an FIR lodged on April 19, 2017, by complainant Ishant Sharma. The FIR was registered under Sections 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

The complaint alleged that the film's promotional material depicted Rao, in his role as an actor, dressed as Lord Shiva in a "cartoonist manner," including a scene where he is seated on a motorcycle. The complainant contended that this portrayal was disrespectful and deliberately intended to hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus, particularly followers of Lord Shiva. Following an investigation, a final report was filed, and a Jalandhar court issued non-bailable warrants against the actor on July 4, 2025.

Petitioner's Arguments: Artistic Freedom and CBFC Certification

Appearing for Rajkummar Rao, the counsel vehemently argued that the FIR is an abuse of the process of law. The primary contentions were:

• No Intent to Insult: It was argued that no offence under Section 295-A IPC is made out, as the depiction was part of an artistic expression within the film's narrative and lacked any malicious intent to insult religious beliefs.
• CBFC Certification as a Shield: The petitioner heavily relied on the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), a statutory body under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The counsel highlighted that the CBFC, being the nodal agency, had thoroughly scrutinized the film, including the scenes in question, and found no objectionable content before certifying it for public exhibition.
• Constitutional Protection: The defense asserted that the portrayal falls squarely within the protected domain of artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was argued that criminal prosecution cannot be initiated based on the subjective reaction of an individual when a responsible statutory authority has already cleared the content.

To support these arguments, the petitioner cited landmark judgments, including Ramji Lal Modi Vs. State of U.P. (1957) and Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017).

State's Opposition: Freedom of Expression is Not Absolute

The State Counsel opposed the quashing petition, arguing that the allegations in the FIR prima facie attract the invoked penal provisions. The State's key arguments were:

• Sentiments Hurt: The portrayal of Lord Shiva in a "cartoonist manner" has hurt the religious sentiments of a vast population of Hindus.
• Reasonable Restrictions: While acknowledging the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), the counsel emphasized that this right is subject to reasonable restrictions. Filmmakers and performers are required to ensure their work does not hurt public religious sentiments.

Court's Interim Order and Future Implications

After hearing the preliminary arguments, the High Court issued a fresh notice to the complainant and adjourned the matter to December 10, 2025.

In a significant move, the court ordered that "further proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed qua the petitioner." This interim order effectively halts the Jalandhar court's proceedings, including the execution of non-bailable warrants against Rajkummar Rao, until the High Court decides on the merits of the quashing petition.

The final decision in this case will be crucial in delineating the boundaries between artistic freedom and religious sentiment, particularly in the context of films that have received certification from the CBFC.