The Koran is a sacred scripture and falls beyond the purview of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 because it is an object held sacred by a class of persons within the meaning of Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Dipak Kumar Sen, Acting, C.J. :- Chandmal Chopra, the appellant and one Setlal Singh moved this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution at about the end of March, 1985 for a Rule Nisi against the State of West Bengal, the respondent, calling upon the latter to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent to declare that each copy of the Koran whether in original Arabic or in its translation in any other language be forfeited to the Government and that the said Rule should be made absolute.

2. The case in the petition was, inter alia, that the writ petitioners were citizens of India and engaged in social work and that the respondent was a public authority.

3. The Koran, also spelt as 'Quran' and stated to be religious book of the Muslims all over the world was written originally in the Arabic and available throughout India in the original Arabic or in its translations in Urdu, Bengali, Hindi, English and other languages.

4. The Koran it was alleged incited violence, disturbed public tranquillity, promoted, on grounds of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and insulted the religion or religious beliefs of other communities in India.

5. In support of the aforesaid, portions of various parts of Koran included in surahs and ayats therein were quoted in the petition, in extenso.

6. It was contended that the publication of the Koran containing the aforesaid offending portions was punishable under S.153A and S.295A of the Indian Penal Code and as such came within the mischief of S.95 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. As a public authority the respondent had a duty to invoke the said S.95 of the Cr.P.C. and to forfeit all copies of the Koran and seize the same wherever found in India.

7. It was alleged that by a letter dt.16th March, 1985 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of West Bengal, the appellant had called upon the respondent Government but the respondent had failed to comply with the demand. It was contended that the respondent by refusing to make the declaration as sought for had failed to discharge its statutory duty laid down in S.95 of the Cr. P. C., 1973.

8. The learned Judge to whom the writ petition was assigned heard the application only to decide whether a Rule Nisi should be issued on the application or not. The State of West Bengal appeared at the hearing and opposed the application. The Union of India intervened and supported the State of West Bengal.

9. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge by his judgment and order dt.17th May 1985 dismissed the application. It was held by the learned Judge that the Koran was the basic text of Muslim religion and was a sacred scripture. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Veerabhadran Chettiar v. Ramswami Naicker, reported in AIR 1958 SC 1032 : (1958 Cri LJ 1565) the learned Judge held further that the Koran was an object held sacred by a class of persons within the meaning of S.295 of the I.P.C. and as such it fell beyond the purview of S.295A of the Code.

10. The learned Judge held that portions of the Koran had been quoted by the petitioners out of context and the same did not reflect any malicious or deliberate intention of outraging the religious feelings of non-muslims. It was noted that there were various interpretations of the different verses of the Koran.

11. The learned Judge held that the orders sought for by the writ petitioners would contravene the preamble of the Constitution and violate the provisions of Art.25 thereof. India, being a secular State, each and every religion practised or professed had to be treated equally and protected. The Koran as the basic text book of a religion occupied the position similar to that of the Bible, Gita, Ramayana and Mahabharata. Orders, if any, passed against the Koran would take away the secularity of India and would deprive a section of its citizens of their right to profess and practice their religion freely. I