Advocate Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud today contended before the Karnataka High Court that insulting Hindutva did not amount to insulting Hinduism. While appearing before the High Court in a case seeking the quashing of FIR against an law student, Advocate Chandrachud said, “Hindutva is not religion and insult to it cannot be regarded as a religious insult”. As per LiveLaw, Abhinav Chandrachud here is the son of Supreme Court justice DY Chandrachud.
The matter had come for hearing before a single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govidaraj. The petitioner law student was charged under sections 295-A (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings…) and 153-A (Promoting enmity between two different groups…) of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly holding an objectionable placard during an anti-CAA protest at Government Arts College, Bengaluru.
Hindutva a predominant ideology of a political party: Advocate Chandrachud
Arguing before the Court, Advocate Chandrachud said that Hindutva could be considered a philosophy, a way of life, or even a predominant ideology of a political party. Therefore according to him using insulting language against Hindutva was not insult to religion but an insult to a political philosophy. Therefore, section 295-A could not be invoked. He contended that section 153-A also was not attracted as it required two communities to be involved. “No offence under sections 153-A and 295-A is made out even if the contents of the FIR are accepted in it entirety”, he contended.
Petitioner was allegedly holding a “F*ck Hindutva” placard
The Principal of Government Arts College, Bengaluru had filed the complaint alleging that some students had assembled unlawfully in the college premises in December 2019 to protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The complaint alleged that some individuals were displaying a placard with “F*ck Hindutva” written on it and it amounted to offences under sections 153-A and 295-A. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail the Sessions Court on January 31, 2020. She approached the High Court seeking the quashing of FIR. The petitioner said that she was not named in the FIR.
The court posted the matter for hearing on December 21 after Advocate sought a short adjournment to place on record the citations referred to by him.