# • SUPR8ME COURT REPORTS • S. VEERABADRAN CHETTIAR • v. 12ll E. V. RAMASiVAMI NAIOKER & OTHEJ1S

- **Citation:** [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1211
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1956
- **Bench:** R. P .• Sinha, Jafer Imam, K. N. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supr8me-court-reports-s-veerabadran-chettiar-v-12ll-e-v-ramasivami-naioker-1522
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Insult to Religion-Ingredients of offence-Interpretation of
slalitte-Duty of Court-Indian Penal Code (Act X LV of I86o),
s. 295.
The words "any object held sacred by any class of persons"
occurring in s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code are of general import
and cannot be limited to idols in temples or idols carried on
festival occasions. Not merely idols or sacred books, but any
other object which is regarded as sacred by any class of persons,
whether actually worshipped or not, fall within the description.
Queen Empress v. Imam Ali, (r887) I.L.R. IO All. 150 and
Ramesh Chunder Sannyal v. Him Mondal, (r890) l.L.R. r7 Cal.
852, considered.
Consequently, in a case where the allegation in the petition
of complaint was that one of the accused broke the idol of God
Ganesa in public and the two others actually aided and abetted
him with the intention of insulting the religious feeling of the
co1nplainant and his community \vho held the deity in veneration
and the trial Magistrate, on receipt of the Police report that the
alleged occurrence \vas true, dismisied the co1np1aint under
s. w3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that the breaking of a 1nucl image of Ganesa \Vas not an offence under s. 295
of the Indian Penal Code and the Sessions Judge and' the High
Court in revision, agreeing with the view of the trial Court,
refused to direct further enquiry :
Held, that the courts belo\v \Vere clearly in error in interpreting s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code in the way they did,
but since the complaint stood long dismissed, no
further
enquiry need l'e directed into the matter.
Held, fμrther, that the Courts must be circumspect in such
matters and pay due regard to the religious susceptibilities of
different classes of persons witb different beliefs, whether they
shared those beliefs or not or whether those beliefs in the
opii1ion of the Court \vere rational or not.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
.JURISDICTION :
Criminal
Appeal No. 49 of 1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgme.nt and
order dated October 13, 1954, of the Madras High
-Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 267 and 1954
154
•
August z5.
•
•
•
•
•
1212
SUPRE:\fE COURT REP~RTS
[1959)
1958
(Criminal Revision Petition No. 249 of 1954) arising
out of the i·u<lgment a1id or<lcr dated Januarv 12, 1954.
S. Veerobodrcu1
.J
Chlliar
of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge a~
v.
Tiruchirnpalli in Criminal Revision Petition "No. 17 of
E. V. Ramaswami 1953.
l\'aicker ,-<;
Ot~ers
Sinl;a }.
R. G'anapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, Tor the
appellant.
No one appeared for the respondents.
1958.
August 25. The ,f udgment of the Court was
delivered by
S1NIIA J.-Thc only question for determination in
this appeal by special lea\·e, is whether the petition of
complaint, disclosed a prima facie offence under s. 295
of the Indian Penal Code.
The courts bclo,1· ha,·e
t.aken the view that it did not, and on that gronnd, it
stood summarily dismissed, before evidence pro and
con had been recorded.
It appears that the appellant filed a pct.it.ion of
complaint in the court of the A<lclitional Fi1·st-Class
)fagistrnte, Tiruchirappalli, against the re8pondcnts,
three in number.
The petition of complaint alleged
inter alia that the first. accused is the leader of Dra vida
Kazakam (a community of persons who profess t•~ be
religious teforrners, one of whose creeds is to carry on
propaganda against idol worship), and as sueh, l:c was
out to " vilify a certain section of the Hindu conanunity and do propaganda by holding meetings and
writing articles." lt i~ further alleged in the petition
of complaint that" recently, the first accused announced his intention of breaking the image of God Ganesa,
the God sacred t-0 the Sai,·a Section of the Hindu
'
Community on 2ith '.\fay, 1953, in a public meeting at
Town Hall. This caused terror-commotion in the
mind of the Saivitc Section of the Hindu Communitv."
The complainant claims to be a Sai,·it.c. The c<;m.
plain:rnt further alleged in his petition t.h1~t on'.\[ ay

## Text

• •
S.C.R.
•
SUPR8ME COURT REPORTS
•
S. VEERABADRAN CHETTIAR
•
v.
12ll
E. V. RAMASiVAMI NAIOKER & OTHEJ1S
(R. P .• SINHA, JAFER IMAM and K. N. WANCHOO .JJ.)
Insult to Religion-Ingredients of offence-Interpretation of
slalitte-Duty of Court-Indian Penal Code (Act X LV of I86o),
s. 295.
The words "any object held sacred by any class of persons"
occurring in s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code are of general import
and cannot be limited to idols in temples or idols carried on
festival occasions. Not merely idols or sacred books, but any
other object which is regarded as sacred by any class of persons,
whether actually worshipped or not, fall within the description.
Queen Empress v. Imam Ali, (r887) I.L.R. IO All. 150 and
Ramesh Chunder Sannyal v. Him Mondal, (r890) l.L.R. r7 Cal.
852, considered.
Consequently, in a case where the allegation in the petition
of complaint was that one of the accused broke the idol of God
Ganesa in public and the two others actually aided and abetted
him with the intention of insulting the religious feeling of the
co1nplainant and his community \vho held the deity in veneration
and the trial Magistrate, on receipt of the Police report that the
alleged occurrence \vas true, dismisied the co1np1aint under
s. w3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that the breaking of a 1nucl image of Ganesa \Vas not an offence under s. 295
of the Indian Penal Code and the Sessions Judge and' the High
Court in revision, agreeing with the view of the trial Court,
refused to direct further enquiry :
Held, that the courts belo\v \Vere clearly in error in interpreting s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code in the way they did,
but since the complaint stood long dismissed, no
further
enquiry need l'e directed into the matter.
Held, fμrther, that the Courts must be circumspect in such
matters and pay due regard to the religious susceptibilities of
different classes of persons witb different beliefs, whether they
shared those beliefs or not or whether those beliefs in the
opii1ion of the Court \vere rational or not.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
.JURISDICTION :
Criminal
Appeal No. 49 of 1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgme.nt and
order dated October 13, 1954, of the Madras High
-Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 267 and 1954
154
•
August z5.
•
•
•
•
•
1212
SUPRE:\fE COURT REP~RTS
[1959)
1958
(Criminal Revision Petition No. 249 of 1954) arising
out of the i·u<lgment a1id or<lcr dated Januarv 12, 1954.
S. Veerobodrcu1
.J
Chlliar
of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge a~
v.
Tiruchirnpalli in Criminal Revision Petition "No. 17 of
E. V. Ramaswami 1953.
l\'aicker ,-<;
Ot~ers
Sinl;a }.
R. G'anapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, Tor the
appellant.
No one appeared for the respondents.
1958.
August 25. The ,f udgment of the Court was
delivered by
S1NIIA J.-Thc only question for determination in
this appeal by special lea\·e, is whether the petition of
complaint, disclosed a prima facie offence under s. 295
of the Indian Penal Code.
The courts bclo,1· ha,·e
t.aken the view that it did not, and on that gronnd, it
stood summarily dismissed, before evidence pro and
con had been recorded.
It appears that the appellant filed a pct.it.ion of
complaint in the court of the A<lclitional Fi1·st-Class
)fagistrnte, Tiruchirappalli, against the re8pondcnts,
three in number.
The petition of complaint alleged
inter alia that the first. accused is the leader of Dra vida
Kazakam (a community of persons who profess t•~ be
religious teforrners, one of whose creeds is to carry on
propaganda against idol worship), and as sueh, l:c was
out to " vilify a certain section of the Hindu conanunity and do propaganda by holding meetings and
writing articles." lt i~ further alleged in the petition
of complaint that" recently, the first accused announced his intention of breaking the image of God Ganesa,
the God sacred t-0 the Sai,·a Section of the Hindu
'
Community on 2ith '.\fay, 1953, in a public meeting at
Town Hall. This caused terror-commotion in the
mind of the Saivitc Section of the Hindu Communitv."
The complainant claims to be a Sai,·it.c. The c<;m.
plain:rnt further alleged in his petition t.h1~t on'.\[ ay 27,
1953, at about 5-30 p.m., the accused broke an idol of
•
•
God G:uicsa in public at the Town Hall Maidan, an<!
'before breaking the idol, he made a speech, and
expressly statccl that he intended to insult the foelings · ...._
of the Hindu community by breaking the ~do! of God
•
•
•
-
j
•
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1213
Ganesa. The std act of breaking the idol was alleged
to have been actively abetted. by instigation and aid
1
d
S. Veerabadran
by the other two accused persons, who a so ma e
Chettiar
speeches. The petition of complaint also alleged that
v.
the said act of breaking the image of God Ganesa was E. v. Ramaswami
done with the intention of insulting the religious Naicker & Others
feelings of certain sections of the Hindu community,
who hold God Ganesa in veneration, and that the acts
complrtined of, amounted to offences under ss. 295 and
295A of the Indian Penal Code.
On those allegations,
the petition of complaint (dated June 5, 1953) prayed
that processes might issue against the three accused
persons. In the list of witnesses appended to the
petition, figured the Additional District Magistrate,
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Town Sub-Inspector of police, Tiruchi Fort, and Sub-Magistrate,
Tiruohy Town. On the same date, the learned magistra to examined the complainant on oath. The complainant made statements in support of his allegations
in the petition of complaint. Thereupon, the learned
. ma:;istrate directed that the petition of complaint be
sent to the Circle Inspector of police, Trichy, for
inquiry and report under s. 202, Criminal Procedure
Code.
On June 26, 1953, 011 receipt of the police
report which " showed that though the occurrence as
alleged had taken place it was a point of. law if the
act of the accused would amount to any offence ", the
learned magistrate passed his order, dismissing the
complaint under s. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the course of his order, the learned magistrate
observed oo follows:-
" The mud figure of Ganesa alleged to have been
broken by accused I is not an object held sacred or
worshipped by any class of persons. Simply because
it resembled the God Ganesa held in veneration by a
section it cannot become an object held sacred.
Even
Ganl'sa idol abandoned by the people as unworthy of
worshi]f loses its sanctity and it is no longer an object
held sacred by anybody, since such given up idols
arc found i11 several places of defilement. It· is not an
offence if a person treads upon any such abandoned
idol. Th@refore the breaking of mud ?gure of Ganesa •
•
Sinha ].
•
.<,·. Vrnal,:1dra11
•
1214
Sl:PREtllE CO-CRT REPORTS
[1959}
doe~ nut amount to an offrnre
lud ian Penal Cork., " •
•
under Sel't ion 29•3,
"Thl' sriccd1es rkliYCl'l'd by tlic n,ccused \\ ith
Cliclf:()1
~
"·
1klihPral" 11ml m11licious intention of outrnging reliJ~. r !iam'n'.;::11111 gio11~ fpc}ings of a cun1n1unity, no doubt a.n1otlnt to an
"'"";" r, r:!I"" offciu:e under :"Pcti0n 2D5-:\, Indian Penn,! Co1\r.,
But
for l:i.ying ;~ e11111pl11int under this 8Cction the sanction
of the Government j,; necessary. This section has fwc11
c]c3,rly mentioned in th1~ r~onipbint n.nd il cannot be
snid it was included by O\·ernight.
\\'it.hout a pro1wr
sanction an offence under this section is unwstaina\,h.,
l t.hcreforc see no sutlieient ground for proceeding with
tho eompln.int ancl l dismiss t.lw same under rnction 203, Criminal Procedure Code. "
The romplai1mnt moved the learned Sessions Judge
of Tirndiirnppalli, by his petition in re\·ision, tiler! on
Juh· !J, l!l53, under HS. 43,5 and 436 of the Criminal
Pro.cedurc Cod.,, for ,;ctti11g aside the order uf dismis,;al
of th" complaint.
In the petition filed in the Court of
Session, the complainant st;tterl \.hat the petition was
confined to thl' complaint in rc8pect of I he allesed .
offe1H·e under s. 2!J5, lndian l'cnal Code, tmd that it
did not seek to rcYise t.hc order of dismissal of the
comphtint. in respect oi an offonce under 8. 295.A "Of
the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Sessiozu, J udi:;c
dismisser\ ttie petition by an order dated January 12,
1954, holding, in agrcem<"1t with the le11mcd magist.rnte, that. the acts complained of did not amount to
an offence under s. 205, Indian Penal Code.
In the
course of his order, the learned 8essions Judge made
the following obscrvritions :-
•
" I <tgree with the learned :\fagistr<>lc .that. the
acts complained of do not amount to an o!Tencc. The
accused, who profoss lo be religions rcformcrH in a
campaign against idolat.ory organized a public meeting
at which they broke an cart.hem image of the Coil
Ga.ncsa.
The particul<tr image broken was the prinltc
property of the accused and was not in itself art'ohjeco
held tittered hy a.uy class of persons; nor do I think
that idol breaking by a non-bclie\·er can re<iso1rnbly he
regarded by a believer as an insult to his religiou ; and
• the ingredients of Sect ion 295, Indian Penal l'ode, are
therefore not' made out.•;
•
. \
•
t
I
'
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1215
The complaiI~ant then moved the High Court in its
revisional
J. urisdiction under
~. 439 of the Code of S. Veerabadra.n
Criminal Procedure.
The matter was heard by a
Chettiar
learned single Judge of that Court. The learned
v.
single Judge also agreed with the courts below in the £. v. Ramaswami
reasons given by them for dismissing the petition of Naick" & Others
complaint, and refused to order further inquiry. In the
course of his judgment, he discussed the question
whether a mud image of God Ganesa, came within the
scope of the words " any object held sacred by any
class of persons " in s. 295, and he answered the
question in the negative.
In this connection, he
referred to the judgment of the Full Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Queen Empress v.
Imam Ali('), which is directly an authority for this
proposition only that the word 'object ' in s. 295 of
the Indian Penal Code, does not include animate
objects. That case dealt with the complaint of killing
a cow. Edge C. J. in the course of his judgment, made
an observation that the word 'object' should be inter-
. preted ejusdern generis with the words ' place of
worship', and by way of an example of such an inanimate object, he mentioned an idol. That observation,
if· anything, is not against "the complainant.
The
learned single Judge also referred to the case of
Ramesh Chunder Sannyal v. Hiru Mondal (2), which
also is not in point inasmuch as it dealt with the case
of a dedicated bull. But the learned Judge seemed to
draw from those cases the inference whieh may be
stated in his own words, as follows:-
·
" Interpreted like that, it would mean that the
section ,would apply only to cases where an idol in a
temple is sought to be destroyed, damaged, or defiled.
The words 'any object held sacred by any class of
persons ' even otherwise will apply only to idols in a
temple or when they are carried out in processions on
festival occasions.
The 'object held sacred ' will
mean t>nly the idols inside the temple ttnd when they
are taken out in processions on festival occasions. In
such circumstances as in the present case the breaking
is nothing more than a doll taken from the shop .
. (l) (1881) I.L.R. IO All. 150.
(2) (1890) l.L.R. 17 Cal. 852.
. .
Sinha}.
•
•
•
•
1216
SUPREME COURT HEPORTS
[1959]
Though the intention of the respom1ents may he t-0
decry the feelings and ,wound the susceptibilities of a
S. Vttrt1bad1 r111
Chalia'
large section of the people, still the intention alone is
'·
not sufficient unless it is carried out by an act which
E. v. Ramas,,,umi must fall within the scope of this section.
The dolls
NaicA., ,.,_ Othm in the shop, though they may resemble several ~f the
SinhtJ ].
•
•
deities in the temple, cannot be held to be objects held
sacred by any class of persons.
In modern society
there are Heveral images of the deities in the <Im wing
rooms of se,·eral houses. It cannot for a moment be
suggested that these images are objects held sacred.
These have got lo be distinguished from the objects
held sacred, which can only be when they are duly
installed in a temple and from which they arc subsequently taken out in procession on festival occasions.
What was broken therefore by the respondents is
nothing more than a doll taken either from a shop or
made for the occasion, and it cannot by any means
be called an object held sacred. The offence is not
made out and the dismissal is t.hereforc justified."
The petitioner moved the High Court for the neel!s8ary cert.ificatc of fitness for making an appeal to this
Court. The learned Judge, who had heard the case
on merits, also dealt with this application, and refusad
to certify that this was a fit case for appeal to this
Court undur Art. 134(l)(c) of t.he Constitntion. The
petitioner mo,·cd this Court and obtained the neccs·
sary special lea\·e t-0 appeal.
It is regrettable thut t.hc respondents have remained
ex purtc in this Conrt. The learned counsel for the
appellant has urged that the courts below ha.cl nndnly
restricted the meaning of the \1•or<l8 of s. 295, particularly, the words "any object. held sacred 'by any
class of persons ", imd that t.he words have been used
in t.heir fullest amplitude by the Lc'gislature, in order
to include any object consecrated or otherwise, which
is held sacred by any dass of persons, not necessarily
belonging t.o a different religion or creed. hi the
first place, whether any object is held sacred by any
class of pe11Sons, must depend upon the evidence in
the case, so also the effect of the words "with the
•inhmtion of thereby insulting the religion of any class
•
. '
-·
I
'
,.
S.C.R.
•
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
•
1217
of persons or with the knowledge that any class of
'958
persons is likely to consider sueh destruction, damage s. Veerabadran
or defilement as an insult to their religion." In this
Chettiar
case, the facts alleged in the petition, do not ~ppear
v.
.
to have been controverted, but the learned magistrate, E. v. Ramaswam•
as also the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Naicker & Othm
,Judge in the High Court, have thrown out the petition
of complaint solely on the ground that the image of
God Ganesa, treated by the respondents as alleged by
the complainant, could not be said to be held sacred
by any class of persons. In the instant case, the
insult alleged was by destruction of the image of God
Ganesa. Apart from the question of evidence which
had yet to be adduced, it is a well-known fact that the
image of Lord Ganesa or any objective representation
of a similar kind, is held sacred by certain classes of
Hindus, even though the image may not have been
consecrated.
The learned Judge in the Court below, has given
much too restricted a meaning to the words " any
· obj'ect held sacred by any class of persons '', by holding that only idols in temples or idols carried in processions on festival occasions, lire meant to be included
wlthin those words. There are no such express words
of limitation in s. 295 of the Intlian Penal Code, and
in our opinion, the learned Judge has ciearly misdirected himself in importing those words of limitation. Idols are only illustrative of-those words. A
sacred book, like the Bible, or the Koran, or the
Granth Saheb, is clearly within the ambit of those
general words. If the courts below were right in their
interpretation of the crucial words in s. 295, the
burning or otherwise destroying or defiling such sacred
books, will not come within the purview of the penal
statute. In our opinion, placing such a restricted
interpretation on the words of such general import,
is against all established canons of construction. Any
object however trivial or destitute of real value in
itself, if regarded as sacred by any class of persons
would come within the meaning of the penal section.
Nor is it absolutely necessary that the object, in order •
•
•
Sinha ].
•
•
•
1218
SUPRE:\lE COURT REPORTS
[1959]
'
to be held sacred, should have been actually worshipped.
An object may 0c held sacred by a class of pers. t'ttrabadrc111
I
b
I
J
Chrllinr
sons wit.10ut eing wors 1ippcc by them. It is clear,
v.
therefore, that the courts below were mther cynical in
E. v. !lamaswan•i so light.ly brushing asirlc the religious suseept ibilitics of
Naicler .s. 01hm that class of per;ions to which the complainant 'l!laims
•
•
•
to belong.
The section has been int ended to respect
the religious susceptibilities of per8ons of <liffcn>nt
religious persuasions or creeds.
Courts ha vc got to be
very circumspect in such matters, and to pay due
regard to the feelings an<l religious emotions of different classes of persons 11'ith different beliefa, irrespccti ve of the comideration w hethcr or not t he1· share
those beliefs, or whether thoy are rational or otherWi8e, in the opinion of the court.
As a result of these consi<lerations, it must be held
that the courts below have erred in their interprettttion of the crucittl words of s. 295 of the Indian Penal
Code.
But the question still remains whether, c\•en
ttfter expressing our strong disttgreement with the
interpretation of the section hy the courts helow, rhis ·
Court should direct a further inquiry into the complttint, which has st-0od <lismissrd for thf' last about
5 years. The action cmi1plaincd of against the accttsed persons, if true, was foolish, to put it mildly, but
as the case•!ias become stale, we do not direct further
inquiry into this complaint. If there is o. recurrence of
such a foolish behaviour on the part of :rny section of
the community, we ham no doubt that. t.hose charged
with the duty of maintaining law and order, will
apply the law in the sense in which we lln.ve interpreted the law.
The appeal is, therefore, clismissetl.
Appeal dismissed .
•
•
.
\
•