Yaariyan 2 FIR Quashed: High Court Says Kirpan Scene Not Insult to Sikh Religion

Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes FIR against ‘Yaariyan 2’ director Radhika Rao, Vinay Sapru, producer Bhushan Kumar and actor Meezaan Jafri, ruling the kirpan song scene wasn’t a deliberate insult to Sikh religion under Section 295-A IPC.

North Desk Correspondent

Chandigarh, September 11

Yaariyan 2 FIR Quashed: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against the director, producer and lead actor of the Bollywood film “Yaariyan 2” over a song sequence in which a non-Amritdhari actor was shown wearing a “Sri Sahib/Kirpan,” ruling that the depiction did not amount to a deliberate or malicious insult to the Sikh religion.

A single bench of Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal ordered quashing the FIR of August 2023, registered in a Police Station in Jalandhar under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Yaariyan 2 FIR Quashed:The complaint and the FIR

Yaariyan 2 FIR Quashed: The FIR arose out of a complaint by Harpreet Singh @ Neetu, son of Mahinder Singh, who alleged that T-Series had released a song from “Yaarian 2” on YouTube showing a clean-shaven actor — identified in the complaint as M

eezaan Jafri — wearing the Sri Sahib, one of the five sacred Kakaars of the Sikh religion, “against Sikh customs.” The complainant’s case was that the Sri Sahib could only be worn by a person who is Amritdhari as per Sikh maryada, and that the song had been “filmed by Director Radhika Rao and Vinay Sapru deliberately, to hurt Sikh sentiments,” with producer Bhushan Kumar also held responsible.

What the petitioners argued

Yaariyan 2 FIR Quashed: Appearing for the petitioners, counsel Tajeshwar Singh raised a two-pronged argument before the court. First, he pointed out that an identical FIR of August 31 2023, registered in Amritsar, also under Section 295-A — had already been filed over the very same song and incident, and argued that a second FIR “on the same allegations was thus, not sustainable,” relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI.

Second, and more substantively, it was argued that the ingredients of Section 295-A were simply not made out. The petitioners’ case was that there had been “neither any deliberate or malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens nor an attempt to insult the religious beliefs of any class,” and that at best, the act “could be said to be done carelessly or unwittingly, without deliberate or malicious intention.” The portrayal, counsel submitted, stemmed from a “lack of knowledge of religious customs rather than an attempt to insult the religion,” and did not “explicitly or implicitly convey any derogatory or disrespectful message towards the Sikh faith or its symbol.”

The petitioners also leaned on the defence of artistic freedom, arguing that the portrayal in the song “fell within the four corners of artistic expression and creative freedom,” and pointed out that the objectionable visuals had since been removed, an apology had been issued, and an assurance given that no such lapse would be repeated.

Counsel cited a string of precedents in support — including Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., M.S. Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, Priya Prakash Varrier v. State of Telangana, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, among others.

What the State argued

Yaariyan 2 FIR Quashed: The State of Punjab, represented by DAG Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, opposed the quashing, arguing that the depiction of a clean-shaven actor “wearing Sri Sahib in his neck against Sikh customs without wearing turban” had hurt the religious feelings of the complainant and the Sikh community, and that since investigation was still pending, the FIR could not be quashed at this stage.

The court’s reasoning

Yaariyan 2 FIR Quashed: Justice Nagpal first laid out the settled ingredients of Section 295-A — that the act must amount to an insult or attempted insult to the religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens; that the insult must carry a “deliberate and malicious intention” of outraging religious feelings; and that it must be conveyed through words, signs, visible representation, or otherwise.

The court said that the provision “does not penalise any and every act of insult,” but only “those varieties of attempts to insult the religion… which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class,” adding that insults “offered unwittingly or carelessly” fall outside the section altogether.

The court leaned heavily on the Priya Prakash Varrier precedent — where the Supreme Court had held that a song picturized with an actress’s “wink” did not amount to an insult to religious sentiment — as well as the three-judge bench ruling in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali, which had described cinema as possessing “many a layer of freedom of expression of thought” protected by “the inherent protective right… called artistic license.”

Applying this framework, the court held:

“…the act attributed to the petitioners i.e. picturization of a song showing a non-Amritdhari Sikh wearing a ‘Sri Sahib/Kirpan’ cannot be termed as an insult to the Sikh religion. The song picturized in a movie is an expression of creative liberty, artistic instinct and the inadvertent portrayal of Sri Sikh Sahib, one of the 5 religious ‘Kakaars’ of the Sikh religion, cannot be construed as a deliberate, malicious act intended to hurt the religious feelings of the complainant or other members of the religious community.”

The court further observed that the act “cannot be regarded by an ordinary prudent mind as grossly offensive or provocative,” and — notably — that “a grievance expressed by an individual belonging to Sikh community cannot portray the sentiments of the entire community.” It concluded that mens rea, “an essential element in the criminal offence,” was “found lacking,” placing the alleged act “clearly outside the purview of Section 295-A IPC.”

The bench also took note of the fact that the petitioners had “already issued an apology” and had removed the objectionable visuals from the film.

The two-FIR question

Yaariyan 2 FIR Quashed: On the argument regarding multiplicity of FIRs, the court noted that counsel had placed on record an order dated October 28, 2024, in a connected matter in which the Amritsar FIR over the same song had already been quashed. However, Justice Nagpal held that since the Jalandhar FIR was registered a day earlier and was thus “prior in time,” the bar against a second FIR for the same offence did not assist the petitioners in this particular case — meaning the quashing here was decided independently, on merits, rather than on the technical ground of double jeopardy.

The order

Yaariyan 2 FIR Quashed: Invoking the guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal — specifically that an FIR may be quashed where the allegations, “even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,” do not disclose an offence — the court held that the present case “squarely falls within the parameters” of that test and allowed the petition:

“The petition is allowed. FIR… and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.”

With this, both FIRs registered against the makers of “Yaariyan 2” over the kirpan sequence in the song “Saure Ghar” now stand quashed.

ALSO: Punjab pension: SC Deals Jolt to Punjab’s Finances, Orders Old Pension for PSEB Staff

READ ALSO: Hanuman Ansh Miracles: 5 Scenes Behind the Sleeper Hit

ALSO: Neem Karoli Baba Larry Brilliant story: The Guru Behind Google.org’s Founder

Follow North Desk on WhatsApp for the latest from Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb7ccdxJENy2H87DBG3E