Delhi High Court Denies FIR Over Art Gallery Paintings In Amita Sachdeva Case Verdict - 2025-09-10

Delhi High Court Denies FIR Over Art Gallery Paintings In Amita Sachdeva Case Verdict

The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition filed by Amita Sachdeva seeking the registration of an FIR against the Delhi Art Gallery and its directors. Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that police intervention is not mandatory when the relevant evidence—specifically the alleged offensive paintings and digital records—has already been secured and is before the trial court.

Disputed Exhibits and Legal Tensions

The controversy arose following an exhibition titled “Hussain: The Timeless Modernist” held at the Delhi Art Gallery. The petitioner, Amita Sachdeva, alleged that specific paintings by the late artist Maqbool Fida Hussain depicted Hindu deities in an offensive manner, intended to insult religious sentiments. After her initial complaint to the police yielded no FIR, the petitioner approached the Patiala House Courts under Section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), seeking a court-ordered investigation.

Conflicting Arguments in Court

The petitioner contended that police expertise was essential to verify the authenticity of the paintings, probe the malicious intent of the gallery organizers, and investigate potential tampering with CCTV footage. She argued that these investigative resources were beyond the capacity of a private individual.

Conversely, counsel for the respondents argued that the paintings were already in police custody pursuant to earlier court orders. They maintained that no further investigation was required, as all material evidence had been secured and the matter could be adjudicated through a standard complaint case rather than a police-led investigation.

Judicial Analysis and Precedents

Justice Amit Mahajan’s decision emphasized that the power to direct an FIR under Section 175 (3) of the BNSS is discretionary. The Court held that magistrates must exercise judicial mind to determine whether police assistance is genuinely necessary to "dig out" evidence that a complainant cannot procure independently.

Citing the landmark principles established in * Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh * and * Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. *, the Court noted that routine or mechanical directives for investigation are to be avoided. The judgment distinguished between cases requiring complex state machinery and those where the evidence is already accessible, stating that the former requires police action while the latter is better handled through a direct complaint process.

Key Observations

• "The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not."
• "At this stage, no specialised police investigation is necessary to ascertain the existence of the offence. Questions of authenticity, intent, or possible tampering can be considered at the time of trial."
• "There is no indication of any miscarriage of justice or legal irregularity in the proceedings undertaken by the two lower courts."
• "The Magistrate is not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police."

Final Verdict

The High Court concluded that no exceptional circumstances warranted the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Since the essential evidence had already been seized and kept in the Malkhana , the trial court was well-equipped to examine the merits of the complaint. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the proceedings would continue as a complaint case, allowing the petitioner to present her evidence directly before the trial judge.