The police have been ordered by the Kerala High Court to take “appropriate action by law” against Abdul Hakkim for defaming a Hindu tradition by removing hairs from his private areas and throwing them in a Thulasithara (an elevated platform containing the sacred basil plant).
The development transpired when the bail application of 32-year-old Sreeraj R A, an Alappuzha native, was being considered by a single bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan. He was taken into custody on charges of posting the incident’s footage online on his Facebook and Instagram accounts.
The authorities claimed Abdul Hakkim was mentally ill and charged the petitioner with inciting religious animosity and creating a nuisance. A case was filed against him at Thrissur’s Guruvayur temple police station. However, the judge granted him bail and strongly objected to the police acting against him while Abdul Hakeem was still at large and no case was registered against him.
“The Thulasithara is a sacred place in the Hindu religion. In the video, it can be seen that Abdul Hakkim plucked hair from his private part and put it in the Thulasithara. It will infringe on the sentiments of Hindu religions. It seems that no case has been registered against Abdul Hakkim. It seems that he is the owner of a hotel on the premises of Guruvayoor Temple,” the court observed and rejected the prosecution’s claim that he was a troubled individual.
It expressed suspicion about his alleged mental state, pointing out that he has a valid driver’s license and runs a hotel close to the Guruvayur Temple. “Even now that the hotel is functioning, it seems that the person who committed the mischief is continuing as the owner and license holder. He even has a driving license. Such a person is set free by the police without registering a case and the petitioner herein is arrested and put behind bars,” the court highlighted.
“I am of the considered opinion that the police should take appropriate action against Abdul Hakkim, by the law. From the facts, it is not clear whether he is a mental patient. Even if he is a mental patient, how he is continuing as the licensee of a hotel which is situated within the premises of Guruvayur Temple, is a question to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has a driving license. If he is a mental patient, how he is allowed to drive the vehicle is also a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer,” the justice questioned.
Section 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which was later changed to 196 (1)(a) (promoting enmity between different groups of religion) of the BNS and section 120 (o) (the penalty for causing a public nuisance and violation of public order) of the Kerala Police Act were invoked against Sreeraj R A. Before the court, the petitioner argued that he had only posted a video that was already on social media. Additionally, he contended that the perpetrator of the offence is not held accountable.
