Supreme Court Ruling on ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani’ Remark!
NEWS / Justice
Supreme Court Ruling on ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani’ Remark: A Delicate Balance Between Free Speech and Offense!
ARABINDA RABHA
In a landmark ruling that has sparked discussions on the boundaries of free speech and cultural sensitivity, the Supreme Court of India has determined that calling someone ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ or ‘Pakistani’ may be offensive but does not constitute a legal offense of hurting religious sentiments.
The verdict, delivered by a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, underscores the crucial distinction between distasteful remarks and legally punishable hate speech.
The case that led to this ruling originated in Jharkhand, where an Urdu translator and acting clerk filed a complaint alleging verbal abuse from an individual during an exchange related to a Right to Information (RTI) application. According to the complaint, the accused referred to the government official’s religious identity in a derogatory manner, allegedly using terms such as ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani.’ The complainant argued that these remarks were intended to insult him on religious grounds.
Upon reviewing the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that while the comments were inappropriate, they did not meet the legal threshold for inciting religious enmity or disrupting communal harmony. Justice BV Nagarathna stated, “The appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani’. Undoubtedly, the statements made are in poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant.”
This ruling raises critical questions about the limits of free speech in a country as diverse as India, where religious and cultural sensitivities often intersect with legal considerations. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the idea that offensive speech, unless it directly incites violence or disrupts public order, cannot be criminalized.
Legal Considerations: Free Speech vs. Hate Speech
One of the key aspects of this judgment is its interpretation of existing laws governing hate speech and religious sentiments. Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections dealing with religious disharmony, such as Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, or language), require a higher burden of proof. The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights that while derogatory speech may be offensive, it does not automatically qualify as a criminal act unless it is shown to incite violence or disrupt public order.
Moreover, the court found that there was no physical assault or coercion involved in the incident, thereby making charges under IPC Section 353—preventing a public servant from performing their duties through assault or criminal force—inapplicable. This further cemented the court’s stance that mere verbal exchanges, even if offensive, do not necessarily warrant legal intervention unless they result in tangible harm or obstruction of duties.
Broader Implications: Setting a Precedent for Speech Regulation
The Supreme Court’s ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving speech-related offenses, especially in an era where social discourse is increasingly polarized. The decision serves as a reminder that legal action cannot be based solely on subjective offense, but must be backed by clear evidence of public harm or incitement.
However, this ruling also brings attention to the evolving nature of speech and its impact on society. In a country as diverse as India, where language, religion, and identity are deeply intertwined, derogatory remarks often carry significant emotional weight. While the legal system may not criminalize every offensive statement, the social and ethical ramifications remain profound.
At a time when social media and digital platforms amplify speech across vast audiences, the ruling may prompt discussions on responsible communication. It reaffirms the importance of fostering respectful dialogue while protecting free speech, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to legal repercussions for mere expressions of opinion, unless those expressions directly harm public order.
The Fine Line Between Offense and Criminality
This case exemplifies the delicate balance between upholding free speech and protecting societal harmony. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces that while laws exist to curb hate speech and religious disharmony, they must not be applied indiscriminately to penalize subjective offense. If every offensive remark were criminalized, it could lead to an erosion of free speech, a fundamental pillar of democracy.
On the other hand, the judgment also highlights the need for continued societal discourse on the ethics of communication. While a legal framework may absolve an individual from criminal liability, ethical considerations remain. The distinction between legal speech and responsible speech is crucial—just because something is not illegal does not mean it is appropriate or justified.
A Reflection on India’s Democratic Values
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is more than just a legal verdict—it is a reflection of India’s commitment to maintaining a balance between constitutional freedoms and social responsibility. It underscores the principle that legal systems must not become tools for policing personal offense, but rather instruments for safeguarding public order and justice.
As India continues to navigate the complexities of free speech in an increasingly connected world, this ruling provides clarity on what constitutes legally actionable speech versus speech that, while offensive, remains within the bounds of lawful expression. The decision is a reminder that democracy thrives not just on freedom, but on the responsible exercise of that freedom.
05-03-2025
Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking. You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com(For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.
Related Posts
Climate Emergency: 2025 Declared International Year of Glaciers
"Join the global movement to save our glaciers! Climate Emergency: 2025 marks the International Year of Glaciers. Act now for...
Read moreDetails
Mahabahu: An International Journal Showcasing Premium Articles and Thought-Provoking Opinions on Global Challenges—From Climate Change and Gender Equality to Economic Upliftment.