The Himachal Pradesh High Court has halted criminal trial proceedings against book vendors in Solan district accused of selling literature containing derogatory remarks about Hindu deities and saints, citing the absence of mandatory government sanction. However, the court declined to quash the First Information Report (FIR), granting state authorities permission to reinitiate proceedings once the required approval is obtained.
In a July 17 order, Justice Rakesh Kainthla ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case without prior prosecution sanction from competent state or central authorities. At the same time, the court determined that the FIR could not be set aside at this stage, noting that making defamatory statements about revered religious figures prima facie suggests an intent to outrage religious feelings.
Lack Of Mandatory Prosecution Sanction
Addressing the procedural flaw, the court emphasized that legal provisions governing offences against the state or those intended to outrage religious feelings strictly require prior approval from a district magistrate, the central government, or the state government. Because prosecutors failed to secure this statutory sanction before the trial court initiated proceedings, the high court set aside the pending trial process while leaving the foundational police complaint intact.
Origin Of Complaint And Police Investigation
The legal dispute originated in Nalagarh, located in Himachal Pradesh’s Solan district, after a local buyer purchased several books and alleged that one publication, titled Hindu Dharam Mahan, contained derogatory material targeting Hindu gods and saints. Following the complaint, Nalagarh Police registered an FIR under Indian Penal Code provisions concerning acts intended to outrage religious sentiments.
Investigating officers subsequently seized multiple book titles—including Hindu Dharam Mahaan, Geeta Tera Gyan Amrit, Kabir Parmeshwar, Jeene Ki Raah, and Gyan Ganga—some of which were authored by Sant Rampal. After recording witness statements, police filed a formal chargesheet in the trial court. The book sellers subsequently petitioned the high court to quash both the FIR and the ongoing judicial proceedings.
Arguments Before The Court
During the hearings, defense advocates Arjun Sheoran and Heena Chauhan argued that the prosecution was legally invalid because mandatory sanction under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code had not been granted by central or state authorities. They further asserted that the complainant had taken isolated sentences out of context from books that were widely available and distributed without prior legal challenge.
Opposing the petition, Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria, representing the state, argued that the FIR and chargesheet clearly demonstrated an intent to defame religious figures and hurt Hindu community sentiments. While admitting that formal prosecution sanction had not yet been secured, the state counsel informed the court that official correspondence requesting approval had already been sent to the district magistrate.
Constitutional Scope And Freedom Of Expression
In its assessment, the high court noted that while citizens enjoy constitutional protection for freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions regarding public order. The court clarified that the trial court must examine the seized literature during any future trial to evaluate whether the contested remarks were legally justified, leaving the door open for fresh proceedings after compliance with statutory sanction requirements.
