Section 295-A Does Not Criminalise Every Creative Misstep: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR over Non-Amritdhari ‘Yaarian 2’ Actor Wearing Kirpan

Case Name: Radhika Rao and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Date of Judgment: 7 September 2026

Citation: CRM-M No. 57632 of 2023

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Section 295-A IPC does not penalise every inaccurate, careless or objectionable portrayal of a religious symbol. The provision applies only where an insult or attempted insult to a religion or its beliefs is accompanied by a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens. The depiction of a non-Amritdhari actor wearing a Sri Sahib/Kirpan in a song from the film Yaarian 2 was held to be an inadvertent exercise of artistic and creative expression, not an aggravated or calculated insult to the Sikh faith. Since the FIR contained no material indicating the essential mens rea of deliberate and malicious intent, continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

Summary: The petitioners, comprising the directors, producer and actor associated with the film Yaarian 2, approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 85 dated 30 August 2023, registered under Section 295-A IPC at Police Station Division No. 4, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar.

The FIR was registered on the complaint of Harpreet Singh alias Neetu, who alleged that a song from Yaarian 2, released by T-Series on YouTube, depicted a clean-shaven and non-Amritdhari actor wearing a Sri Sahib/Kirpan. The complainant asserted that the Sri Sahib is one of the five sacred Kakaars of the Sikh faith and, according to Sikh customs, may be worn only by an Amritdhari Sikh. He alleged that the directors, producer and actor had deliberately made the depiction to hurt the religious sentiments of the Sikh community.

The petitioners contended that the portrayal lacked any deliberate or malicious intention to insult Sikhism or outrage the religious feelings of its followers. According to them, the depiction was, at worst, an inadvertent mistake arising from insufficient knowledge of religious customs. It conveyed no derogatory or disrespectful message against the Sikh faith or its symbols and fell within the sphere of artistic expression and creative freedom.

The petitioners further submitted that the objectionable visuals had already been removed and that they had issued an apology acknowledging the inadvertent mistake. They assured that they had never intended to hurt religious sentiments and that such an error would not be repeated.

The State opposed quashing on the ground that depicting a clean-shaven actor wearing a Sri Sahib without a turban violated Sikh customs and had hurt the sentiments of the complainant and members of the Sikh community. It argued that the filmmakers and actor were responsible for creating the song and that the investigation should not be terminated at its inception.

The High Court examined the essential ingredients of Section 295-A IPC. It held that the prosecution must establish an insult or attempted insult to the religion or religious beliefs of a class of Indian citizens, committed through words, signs, visible representations or otherwise, and accompanied by a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage that class’s religious feelings. The offence, therefore, requires a specific and aggravated form of mens rea.

Relying upon the Constitution Bench decision in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that Section 295-A does not punish every act capable of being regarded as an insult to religion. Unwitting, careless or inadvertent acts, unaccompanied by a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings, remain outside its scope.

The Court also referred to Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, where the Supreme Court held that every allegedly offensive representation does not attract Section 295-A, and Priya Prakash Varrier v. State of Telangana, where criminal proceedings over the picturisation of a traditional song were quashed in the absence of a calculated tendency to insult religion or disturb public order.

On artistic freedom, the Court relied upon Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali, (2018) 1 SCC 770, recognising that cinema, literature, theatre and other creative works enjoy an inherent sphere of artistic licence founded upon imagination, originality and freedom of expression.

Applying these principles, the High Court found that the portrayal of a non-Amritdhari actor wearing the Sri Sahib/Kirpan could not reasonably be characterised as a deliberate insult to Sikhism. A song picturised for a film constituted an expression of creative liberty and artistic instinct. The depiction, though religiously inaccurate, could not be regarded by an ordinary prudent person as grossly offensive, provocative or maliciously designed to outrage the Sikh community.

The Court further observed that a grievance expressed by one individual belonging to a religious community could not, by itself, be treated as representing the sentiments of the entire community. More importantly, the FIR disclosed no facts demonstrating the deliberate and malicious intention indispensable to an offence under Section 295-A IPC.

The petitioners had also argued that another FIR had been registered in Amritsar concerning the same song and allegations. The High Court accepted the general principle that there cannot be a second FIR for the same offence. However, it rejected that ground in the present petition because the impugned Jalandhar FIR dated 30 August 2023 was prior in time to the Amritsar FIR. The earlier FIR could not be quashed merely because another FIR was registered subsequently.

Nevertheless, the Court held that the case squarely fell within the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, because even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted in their entirety, they did not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 295-A IPC.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 85 dated 30 August 2023, registered under Section 295-A IPC at Police Station Division No. 4, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, along with all consequential proceedings, insofar as they concerned the petitioners. The Court found that the essential element of deliberate and malicious intention was absent and that the complained-of portrayal fell within artistic and creative expression rather than criminal religious insult.