Back
Quashes Case Against Surat Trader Over Lord Buddha Images on Saree Pallu
The has quashed a criminal case against a Surat-based textile merchant accused of by selling sarees featuring images of Lord Gautam Buddha on their pallus. Justice P. M. Raval, presiding over the single-judge bench, ruled that mere commercial activity involving religious motifs, absent any , does not attract the penal provisions of .
A Business Dispute or Religious Offence?
The case originated from an FIR registered in at , Surat. The de facto complainant, president of the , alleged that the applicant—Bharatbhai Hirjibhai Shankar, a trader operating under the name —was selling sarees and textile fabrics with printed images of Lord Gautam Buddha positioned near the lower border or pallu. The complainant claimed this act degraded the deity and intentionally wounded the religious sentiments of the Ambedkar community.
Shankar approached the High Court in under seeking of the FIR, arguing that the allegations were baseless and stemmed from business rivalry.
Arguments: Lack of
Shankar's counsel, , submitted that no case was made out even if the FIR was taken at face value. He argued that the applicant was a legitimate businessman procuring goods based on market trends, with no intention to hurt religious feelings. The two-day delay in lodging the FIR, according to the defense, cast serious doubts on its credibility and pointed to ulterior motives.
On the other hand, the State and the complainant's counsel, represented by and respectively, contended that photographs of the sarees clearly showed the alleged insult and that a should not be conducted at the stage.
Legal Framework: The 'Deliberate and Malicious' Test
Justice Raval anchored the analysis on the settled legal principles governing Section 295A IPC, which punishes acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Citing the Constitution Bench decision in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (AIR 1957 SC 620), the Court noted that the provision only covers aggravated forms of insult—those perpetrated with a "" to disrupt public order. Insults offered carelessly or without such intent fall outside its scope.
The judgment also relied on the 's seven illustrative categories for FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604). Applying these parameters, the Court examined whether the allegations disclosed a .
Commercial Activity Does Not Automatically Equal Criminal Intent
Reviewing the photographs and a police report dated , the Court found nothing to suggest deliberate malice. Justice Raval observed:
"Mere printing or selling of textile materials containing artistic depictions of a deity or revered icon, even if appearing on portions of a garment near the lower border or Pallu, cannot automatically be presumed to be an act driven by deliberate malice or calculated to disrupt public order."
The Court emphasized that commercial practices—even those using religious motifs—must be assessed for intent. It further stated:
"Commercial activity involving religious motifs, undertaken without any overt act, inflammatory rhetoric, or demonstrable intent to denigrate a religious belief, does not cross the threshold into a criminally punishable insult under Section 295A."
Expanding on this, the judgment warned that a contrary approach would impermissibly expand the statute:
"To hold otherwise would expand the criminal statute beyond its intended constitutional parameters and penalize commercial practices absent any criminal
."
Case Falls Within
The Court concluded that the foundational ingredients of Section 295A were completely absent, noting that the applicant was
"a commercial merchant engaged in the routine business of trading Sarees and dress materials based on prevailing market trends and designs."
The uncontroverted facts, even accepted at face value, failed to establish a
case.
Accordingly, the FIR was held to fall under categories (1), (3), (5), and (7) of the Bhajan Lal framework—allegations not constituting an offence, being absurd or inherently improbable, or being maliciously instituted.
Final Order: FIR Quashed
The High Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR (C.R. No. II-1169 of 2017) and all consequential proceedings against the applicant. Rule was made absolute, with direct service permitted.
This ruling reinforces the principle that criminal law cannot be used as a tool for harassment in business disputes, and that a clear line exists between lawful commercial expression and punishable religious insult.
