Back
Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Akbaruddin Owaisi Over Lord Ram Remarks
A divisive election speech from 2011 has brought MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi back into legal crosshairs, with the refusing to quash criminal proceedings against him. Justice R. M. Joshi, sitting at the , dismissed Owaisi’s application under , holding that the remarks appeared intended to mock Lord Ram and were capable of wounding the religious sentiments of his devotees.
"Undeniably, constitutional structure promotes tolerance and values like liberty, fraternity. However, tolerance cannot be misconstrued to be a license to intentionally hurt the religious feelings of others,"
the judge observed.
A Speech Under Scrutiny: The 2011 Rally Remarks
The controversy traces back to , when Owaisi, then a sitting MLA from Telangana, addressed an election rally in Nanded, Maharashtra. During the speech, he discussed the ’s judgment in the . The prosecution alleged that certain parts of his address went beyond legal debate and descended into derogatory references to Lord Ram and his mother. A complaint was filed in January 2013 by MLA Rajasingh T. Naval Singh Lodh before the , which was later converted into an FIR under Sections 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 298 (uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings) of the .
The case was transferred to the in Nanded district for investigation. After the filing of a chargesheet in , the took and issued summons against Owaisi in November 2021, prompting him to seek of the entire proceeding.
The Legal Battle: and
Owaisi’s primary challenge rested on two pillars: and the absence of deliberate or malicious intent. His counsel argued that since the maximum punishment for the offences is three years (Section 295A) and one year (Section 298), the Magistrate should have taken within three years of the alleged offence. As the order was passed on —nearly ten years after the speech—the proceedings were barred by . Additionally, the applicant contended that the speech was made in the context of a judicial proceeding and did not amount to an intentional insult aimed at outraging religious feelings.
The state, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor , countered that the period is computed from the date of filing of the complaint—not from the date of taking . Since the complaint was lodged on , well within three years of the speech, the Magistrate had jurisdiction. On merits, the prosecution pointed to the tone, throw, and context of the speech, arguing that the words were measured and calculated, not spontaneous or inadvertent.
What Constitutes Insult? Court’s Analytical Framework
Justice Joshi delved into the ingredients of Sections 295A and 298, emphasizing that the offence requires a "
" to insult or outrage religious feelings. He noted that even innocent words, depending on the tone and manner of delivery, could become lethal to emotions.
"The tone, pitch and throw of the words determine the underlying intent of the speaker,"
the court observed.
Crucially, the court distinguished Owaisi’s case from the precedents he cited—such as
and
—where the allegations themselves failed to disclose any deliberate intent. Here, the statements in question were not reproduced in the order to avoid further publicity, but the court noted that they
"
indicates intention to mock the religious figures; Lord Shriram and his mother."
The judge added that any statement derogatory to
"any woman and her child"
would wound sentiments, especially when referring to a deity worshipped across the country.
The court also rejected the argument outright, relying on the ’s ruling in Ghanshyam Soni (2025) that the relevant date for computing is the date of filing the complaint, not the date of taking . Since the complaint was filed on —within three years of the speech—the Magistrate’s order was valid. Further, under Section 468(3), when multiple offences are tried together, the period for the graver offence applies to all, so the one-year offence under Section 298 was also within time.
The Line Between and
In a significant passage, the court affirmed that freedom of speech is not absolute. It acknowledged the right to adopt any religion—or none at all—but stressed that such freedom does not permit intentional disrespect to another faith.
"Even an Atheist denying existence of God or a non believer is permitted to have his own opinion and it may not be treated as hurting religious sentiments of others. However, at the same time, he cannot be allowed to disrespect any religion and hurt the beliefs of the persons following such religion,"
the judge wrote.
The court also raised a separate concern: the allegedly objectionable speech was still available on YouTube despite the criminal proceedings. Justice Joshi expressed that its continued circulation could perpetuate the insult already cognised by the court. While he refrained from issuing directions in the absence of appropriate parties, he expressed the "hope and trust" that the government would take necessary steps.
Final Verdict: No Relief for the Leader
The application was dismissed as lacking merit. The court found that the allegations, taken at face value, made out a case against Owaisi. None of the grounds for recognized in —such as , , or —were satisfied.
The case will now proceed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur, for trial. The ruling does not determine guilt or innocence; it merely holds that the proceedings are legally maintainable and must continue. For now, the courtroom doors remain open for Akbaruddin Owaisi to defend himself—but the High Court has made clear that the shield of cannot be used as a sword to wound religious faith.
