On 25th January, the Supreme Court of India stayed criminal proceedings against Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya for his derogatory remarks about Ramcharitmanas. In its comments, the court stated what Maurya said was his opinion and questioned how it was considered criminal.
The apex court was hearing Maurya’s plea for quashing criminal proceedings against him over his derogatory remarks about Ramcharitmanas. Notably, the Lucknow Bench had dismissed his plea to quash legal proceedings against him at Pratapgarh district court.
Maurya was booked for hurting religious sentiments over his derogatory remarks about Ramcharitmanas. Maurya claimed in his plea that the case against him was politically motivated. Maurya has a habit of using derogatory language against Hindu deities and has made several controversial statements over the years. His followers even burnt copies of Ramcharitmanas in his support.
During the hearing, a two-judge bench comprised of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta stayed proceedings against Maurya. Justice Gavai questioned the UP government, “Why do you have to be so touchy?” Echoing his stand on the matter, Justice Mehta said, “It’s a matter of interpretation. Plain and simple. How is it an offence?” When a government law officer pointed out that copies of Ramcharitmanas were burnt, the court countered that Maurya could not be held responsible for that as it “was a line of thought”. The court issued notice returnable in four weeks and stayed the proceedings.
What did Maurya say?
On January 22, Maurya, while speaking to a news channel, said that Ramcharitamanas, written by Goswami Tulsidas in the 17th century, promoted social discrimination and spread hatred.
“Religion is meant for the welfare of humanity and for strengthening it. If there is any insult to a section of society due to certain lines in the Ramcharitamanas on the basis of ‘jaati’, ‘varn’ and ‘varg’, then it is certainly not ‘dharma’, it is ‘adharma’. There are certain lines in which names of castes such as ‘teli’ and ‘kumhaar’ are mentioned,” said the SP leader. He added that Tulsidas wrote the book for his own pleasure while demanding a ban on the “objectionable portions” of the Ramcharitmanas.
In his support, on January 29, Akhil Bharatiya OBC Mahasabha burnt the copies of Ramcharitmanas written by poet and saint Tulsidas in the Vrindavan Yojana of the PGI Kotwali area of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The OBC Mahasabha members announced their support to Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya who recently stirred controversy by saying that the Ramcharitmanas should be banned.
While he claims cases against him are politically motivated, he continued to mock the Hindu religion. In the most recent example, he termed the Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha ceremony as hypocrisy and fraud and said that if a ‘stone’ can become alive by consecration, then why can’t the dead bodies walk? Maurya was addressing a gathering organized by the Karpuri Thakur Sena in Gazipur. He stated that people need to know the truth about the BJP and stay away from the party ideology.
“The BJP had organized the event just to distract the voters from the real problems. The party members are fake. This all is fake. Pran Pratishtha should be now done to the family members who have died. If a stone becomes alive by Pran Pratishtha, why can’t a dead person walk?” he said. “They don’t want people to discuss unemployment, inflation, and other social problems, so they are distracting the voters by making Ram Mandir. Lord Ram has been worshipped for thousands of years. What was the need to organize the Pran Pratishtha event? The people in the government want to hide their sins so they are organizing such religious events. They want themselves to be called Gods,” he added.
Bias at the highest level of the judiciary: If Hindus should not get ‘touchy’, why did SC get ‘touchy’ about Nupur Sharma quoting scriptures
When it comes to alleged derogatory remarks, the same apex court had held former Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Nupur Sharma responsible for unrest in the country after she countered Islamist panellist Taslim Ahmed Rehmani during a debate by merely quoting Islamic scriptures – something that had been repeated by several Maulvis, including a preacher like Zakir Naik. In May 2023, Rehmani and Sharma were in a debate about the disputed structure at Gyanvapi. During that debate, Rehmani used derogatory language against Bhagwan Shiv repeatedly, to which Sharma replied and questioned what would happen if she started using similar language for his religion – while she quoted certain facts mentioned in Islamic scriptures.
Sharma’s counter statement was cunningly trimmed from the complete conversation and shared online as “derogatory remarks against Islam” by Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair. As a result of the well-planned campaign against Sharma, the BJP suspended her from the party, and she had to stay away from public life out of fear for her life. She got death and rape threats from Muslims across the world. There were several rallies where Muslims chanted the murderous slogan “Sar Tan Se Juda” against her. Though she has made some public appearances in the last few months, she has to be surrounded by security personnel. On the other hand, Rehmani is living a happy and peaceful life without any consequences to his statements.
At the time, after Nupur Sharma was under threat by jihadis from across the world, multiple FIRs were filed against her in India, in various cities and towns. Sharma approached the court to club her FIRs so the investigation could take place against her in Delhi itself instead of her having to travel for different FIRs, which would endanger her life. It is to be kept in mind that Sharma approached the Supreme Court at a time when Jihadis had already beheaded Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur for merely supporting Nupur Sharma. The Jihadis had filmed his beheading and then proudly made the video viral on social media. Besides the video of the murder itself, they had also uploaded a video where both of them were seen holding the blood-soaked knife used to behead Kanhaiya Lal and threatening Hindus.
Nupur Sharma’s plea in the Supreme Court was perfectly legal and legitimate. However, during the hearing, the Supreme Court, which is today asking why the Uttar Pradesh police are getting so ‘touchy’ about derogatory comments against Hinduism, blamed Nupur Sharma not just for her fate but even the beheading of Kanhaiya Lal. During the hearing of Sharma’s case, Justice Surya Kant stated, “The way she has ignited emotions across the country… This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.” Further, the Supreme Court called Nupur Sharma a woman with a ‘loose tongue’ and blamed her for the beheading of Kanhaiya Lal saying, “This is the outcome of what happened unfortunately at Udaipur“. Further, the bench also commented on her character saying, “This petition also shows her obstinate character and her arrogance that she thinks that the Courts of the Magistrate are too small for her”.
In other words, Justice Surya Kant made it clear that for him, it is Sharma’s fault that she spoke in a manner that ‘provoked’ the Islamists, not the Islamists’ fault, who have declared openly to behead anyone whom they deem as ‘blasphemous’. Further, the Supreme Court also declared Nupur Sharma, who merely quoted scriptures, as responsible for a brutal beheading that was carried out by Islamists.
Essentially, in the Nupur Sharma case, the Supreme Court legitimised the violent hurt of the Muslim community by alluding that they had an excuse to give rape threats, beheading threats, commit riots and even behead a man because they were hurt by Nupur Sharma quoting their scriptures. The apex court even stated that Nupur Sharma does not deserve the relief granted to the country’s common people (by transferring the FIRs to one jurisdiction). It declared that Nupur had no right to say the things she said in the first place, indirectly justifying the open calls for her murder and hanging.
In comparison, in the case of Swami Prasad Maurya, the court asked the Uttar Pradesh government in turn why they were being “touchy” (sensitive) for booking the politician for the vile and derogatory comments made by him, which were also patently false. Further, the court said that Maurya could not be held responsible for the burning of the Ramcharitmanas. When a government law officer pointed out that copies of Ramcharitmanas were burnt, the court countered that Maurya could not be held responsible for that as it “was a line of thought”.
If the court thinks that burning of a religious book should be considered a “line of thought” and false, derogatory comments can merely be “opinions” when it comes to Hinduism, one has to question why the same line of argument was not taken when scriptural facts were quoted by Nupur Sharma with regards to Islam and why she was blamed for not only the death threats she was getting, but also the beheading of a Hindu man by Jihadis.
The Indian State, including the Judiciary, often signals to Hindus that the Muslim community’s feelings are to be placated far more than the Hindu’s simply because the Muslim community has a propensity to take to the streets and commit violence every time their fragile feelings are hurt. The Hindu community, however, shoulders the burden of tolerance and secularism and clearly, does not even find recourse in the law when false and deliberately insulting statements are made against their faith. One has to wonder if the Judiciary will finally shed its double standards when it comes to issues of communal tension and religious matters to treat the intolerant minority in parity with the tolerant majority.
