HC grants bail to man accused of hurting religious sentiments
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only BenefitsChandigarh, August 4
Just over three months after the Punjab and Haryana High Court made its intent clear to examine the legal sanctity of a “hukamnama” and any other provisions of law barring an individual from preaching Sikh religion as a follower, Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted no such verse could be produced during the course of hearing.
The judge was hearing an anticipatory bail petition filed by an accused describing himself as reincarnation of Guru Nanak Dev. A senior advocate appearing for Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), the complainant in the case, vehemently argued that the petitioner, by stating himself to be a reincarnation, had deliberately insulted and hurt the religious sentiments of the Sikh community with a malicious intention.
The court then asked if there was any specific restriction mentioned in any of the verses of Shri Guru Granth Sahib or in the hukamnama issued by Guru Gobind Singh.
“Though the case was heard at length on subsequent dates, no such verse/hukamnama could be produced to authenticate such stand,” the Court observed.
Justice Moudgil said there was a “thin distinction” between religion and religious belief. So far, no interpretation was available, “except to understand that religious belief is a matter of subjective acceptance as the same may be believed by one individual but not by others”.
Referring to a “command” made by Guru Gobind Singh, Justice Moudgil said a reading of the verse clearly demonstrates that Shri Guru Granth Sahib was to be considered as a Guru by Sikhs.
“But it is not in so many terms restricting the belief only to accept Shri Guru Granth Sahib alone as their Guru. In such a circumstance, the religious belief would weigh more in the mind, which is a matter of subjective acceptance,” Justice Moudgil said.
The observation
Justice Moudgil said there was a “thin distinction” between religion and religious belief. So far, no interpretation was available, “except to understand that religious belief is a
matter of subjective acceptance as the same may be believed by one individual but not by others”.