SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3603

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J
Sayali Deepak Upasani – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 1902 OF 2012|WRIT PETITION NO.1906 OF 2012



Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Niteen Pradhan, Senior Advocate with P. D. Desai
For the Respondents: Mrs. Megha Bajoria, APP, Mr. N. T. More, PSI

Humorous rhyming exclamations in comedy entertainment lack deliberate malicious intent to outrage religious feelings; prior governmental sanction mandatory for offences under Section 295A IPC.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 295-A and 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 196 - Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings - Expressions like religious invocation followed by food items used as rhyming exclamations in themed comedy entertainment episode do not disclose deliberate or malicious intention - Offence requires both elements; mere viewer offence insufficient - Judge's role in evaluating performances and performing artist's scripted act lack material showing shared intent - Mandatory previous sanction of government required before cognizance or investigation, absent here - FIR quashed to prevent misuse of process. (Paras 16-29)

(B) Comedy entertainment programmes - Judged in full context and theatrical setting, not by stray phrases - Continuous popularity across communities indicates acceptance as light-hearted humour without religious animosity - No nexus to real-life incidents or public affairs. (Paras 18-22)

Facts of the case:
Writ petitions challenging registration of FIR for alleged offences under Section 295-A r/w 34 IPC based on complaint over comedy show episode themed on professions, featuring humorous performance with rhyming exclamations perceived to offend religious sentiments; no preliminary verification or sanction obtained.

Findings of Court:
No ingredients of offence disclosed on record; proceedings lack legal foundation due to absent sanction; criminal process not to be invoked casually against entertainment participants.

Issues: Whether expressions in comedy context constitute deliberate malicious outrage of religious feelings; sufficiency of complaint attributing liability to judge and artist; requirement of prior sanction before proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 295-A not attracted absent deliberate and malicious intent proven from material; comedy acts viewed holistically; sanction under Section 196 mandatory precondition; High Court to quash proceedings where foundational ingredients and legal prerequisites missing.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. fir under s.295a challenged from tv comedy complaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. comedy skit used rhyming exclamations for humor. (Para 7 , 8)
3. parties contest intent, sanction, trial necessity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. s.295a needs malicious intent; s.196 prior sanction. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. comedy context precludes deliberate religious outrage. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. no sanction or ingredients justifies quashing fir. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. fir quashed; petitions allowed without costs. (Para 29)

ORDER:

1. Inasmuch as both the present writ petitions emanate from an identical factual matrix and give rise to common questions of law, this Court considers it appropriate and expedient to dispose of the same by a common order.

2. The present Criminal Writ Petitions are instituted by the Petitioners laying challenge to the registration of First Information Reports bearing C.R. No. 265 of 2010 dated 27 November 2010, registered with Pydhonie Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 295-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The factual background, giving rise to the present petitions, in brief, is thus. The impugned FIR came to be registered pursuant to a complaint lodged by one Mr. Mohd. Imran Dadani Rasabi, who claims to be the President of Raza Academy. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1902 of 2012 was, at the relevant time, functioning as a Judge in a programme telecast on Sony Entertainment Television, hereinafter referred to as “SET”. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1906 of 2012 was participating as a performing artist in a programme broadcast on the said channel. The FIR further refers to Multi Screen Media Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as “MSM”, as a company incorporated in India, having its registered office at Malad, Mumbai, which acts as the exclusive distributor within India of channels owned by MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “MSM Singapore”, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore and having its registered office therein. It is further stated that MSM Singapore owns and operates the television channel known as “Sony Entertainment Television”, which is uplinked from Singapore and thereafter downlinked and exhibited in India as well as in other jurisdictions. Various programmes broadcast on the said channel are produced by different production houses and are conceptualized, written and directed by different individuals. One such programme, titled “Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo”, was telecast on SET and is described as a family-oriented entertainment programme, having no nexus with real-life incidents or contemporary public affairs. The primary objective of the said channel is to provide general entertainment to viewers. The programme in question was telecast with effect from 4 September 2010 on every Friday and Saturday between 9.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m., and consisted of comic performances rendered by various artists. It is asserted that the said programme was not intended to cause offence or hurt the sentiments of any religion, caste, community, or section of society.

4. It is further submitted that prior to September 2010, the programme “Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo” was telecast under the broader title “Comedy Circus”, which has been aired on SET since the year 2007 under various formats such as “Comedy Circus Ke Superstar”, “Comedy Circus Teen Ka Tadka”, and others, with certain modifications in presentation. The essential format of the programme consists of pairs or groups of performers, generally comprising two or three artists, who perform acts across episodes, which are then evaluated by judges appointed for that purpose. In that context, the Petitioners, being respectively a Judge and a performing artist, would participate in the programme by appreciating performances, awarding marks, and offering comments to the contestants. It is further contended that the programme is intend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top