1985 Supreme(Cal) 207

High Court Of Calcutta
BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK
CHANDANMAL CHOPRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Matter 7. 97  Of  1985
Decided On : 05/17/1985

The Koran is a sacred book protected under Section 295 of the IPC, and Section 295A of the IPC does not apply to it. Passing an order to declare the Koran forfeited under Section 95 of the CrPC would violate the provisions of Articles 25 and the Preamble of the Constitution of India, which guarantee freedom of religion and secularism.

Headnote:

KORAN - SACRED BOOK - SECTIONS 153A, 295, 295A OF IPC - INTERPRETATION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - JURISDICTION - CONSTITUTIONALITY - FREEDOM OF RELIGION - SECULARISM - HUMAN RIGHTS - PUBLICITY - COURT'S CAUTION - DISMISSAL OF PETITION: - Koran is a sacred book and an object held sacred by Muslims, protected under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). - Section 295A of IPC, which penalizes deliberate and malicious insults to religious beliefs, does not apply to the Koran as it is protected under Section 295. - The Court cannot pass an order to declare the Koran forfeited under Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as it would violate the provisions of Articles 25 and the Preamble of the Constitution of India, which guarantee freedom of religion and secularism. - The Court should be cautious in entertaining public interest litigation, especially when it involves religious sentiments and feelings of a minority community. - The petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the Koran forfeited is dismissed as the Court lacks jurisdiction and no prima facie case is made out.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, appearing in person, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of West Bengal to declare each copy of the Koran, whether in the original Arabic or in its translation in any language, as forfeited to the Government. The petitioner alleged that certain passages in the Koran promote communal passions and religious fanaticism, leading to violence and destruction of holy places. The State and the Union of India opposed the petition, arguing that the Koran is a sacred book protected under Section 295 of the IPC and that the petitioner's action amounted to an insult to Islam and other religions.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Koran is a sacred book and an object held sacred by Muslims, protected under Section 295 of the IPC. Section 295A of the IPC, which penalizes deliberate and malicious insults to religious beliefs, does not apply to the Koran as it is protected under Section 295. The Court further held that passing an order to declare the Koran forfeited under Section 95 of the CrPC would violate the provisions of Articles 25 and the Preamble of the Constitution of India, which guarantee freedom of religion and secularism. The Court also expressed caution in entertaining public interest litigation, especially when it involves religious sentiments and feelings of a minority community.

Issues: 1. Whether the Koran is a sacred book protected under Section 295 of the IPC? 2. Whether Section 295A of the IPC applies to the Koran? 3. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to pass an order to declare the Koran forfeited under Section 95 of the CrPC? 4. Whether such an order would violate the provisions of Articles 25 and the Preamble of the Constitution of India? 5. Whether the Court should be cautious in entertaining public interest litigation involving religious sentiments and feelings of a minority community?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the decision in Veerabadran Chettiar v. V. Ramswami Naicker, where the Supreme Court held that a sacred book like the Koran is an object held sacred by a class of persons and is protected under Section 295 of the IPC. 2. The Court held that Section 295A of the IPC, which penalizes deliberate and malicious insults to religious beliefs, does not apply to the Koran as it is protected under Section 295. 3. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to pass an order to declare the Koran forfeited under Section 95 of the CrPC as it would violate the provisions of Articles 25 and the Preamble of the Constitution of India, which guarantee freedom of religion and secularism. 4. The Court observed that such an order would amount to abolition of the Muslim religion itself and would deprive a section of people of their right of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship. 5. The Court emphasized the need for caution in entertaining public interest litigation, especially when it involves religious sentiments and feelings of a minority community.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Writ Court's jurisdiction was wrongly sought to be invoked, no prima facie case was made out, and the Court lacked the power or jurisdiction to pass any such order as prayed for in the application.