HC relief for Raveena Tandon in case of hurting religious sentiments

More than five years after the registration of an FIR against Raveena Tandon and another Bollywood personality on the allegations of hurting religious sentiments, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that they will not be called to join the investigation. The order will remain in force at least till July 14, the next date of hearing in the case.

The direction came after Justice Manisha Batra’s Bench was told that Punjab and other respondents had started issuing notices under Section 35 of the BNS, calling upon them to join the investigation.

“Till the next date of hearing, no such step shall be taken by the respondent,” the Bench ruled. The petitioners were represented by senior advocate Akshay Bhan and counsel Abhinav Sood, Anmol Gupta, Mehndi Singhal, Sayyam Garg, Jay K Bhaardawaj, Arsh Bir Bhatti, Ishan Kshetarpal and Harsh Gupta.

The Bench was initially told that none of the ingredients pertaining to offence under Section 295-A of the IPC were made out from the contents of the FIR. It was registered for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of a class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It was registered under Section 295-A of the IPC at the Ajnala police station on December 25, 2019.

Referring to the allegations in the FIR, counsel said the petitioners were accused of making joke of a word and playing with religious sentiments of a particular community. Going into the background, counsel submitted Tandon and another Bollywood personality Bharti Singh were asked to spell the word and also disclose its meaning. While Tandon spelt it correctly, Bharti Singh misspelt it. It apparently meant that Bharti Singh did not know the word and was referring to another word in Hindi.

The two were guest/participants and producer/anchor of a show telecast on digital platform. Describing the allegations as “unjustified, false and incorrect”, their counsel submitted there was nothing that could lead to the presumption that the act was intended to hurt the religious sentiments of a community. It could not even be said that the act remotely qualified to constitute an offence under Section 295-A of the IPC. Tandon, being a participant-guest in the show “Back Benchers” had only spelled the word.

Chandigarh