A hurt religious sentiments FIR is not decided by how strongly someone felt offended. Indian criminal law asks a narrower question: did the person who spoke, wrote or put up the banner act with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, or with the intention of promoting enmity between groups? Where that intent is absent, the Supreme Court has held more than once that the offence does not stand, and a High Court can stop the prosecution before it grinds on for years.
Part of the High Court litigation practice at S Jain & Attorneys, Bangalore.
That gap between offence taken and offence committed is where most of these cases live. It is also why an interim stay from a High Court matters so much to an accused person. It decides nothing about guilt. It stops the machinery while the legal question is examined.
The Davanagere banner case, and what the High Court actually ordered
On 16 August 2026, Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay on criminal proceedings against Hindu activist Satish Pujari and ten others, in a matter arising out of a Ganesha festival gathering in Davanagere. The petition is registered as Satish Pujari and others v. State of Karnataka, CRL.P 12149/2026. The matter is pending. Nothing in this article should be read as a finding that any person did or did not commit an offence.
As reported by LiveLaw, the prosecution case is that the petitioners installed a Ganesha idol and put up a flex banner said to depict Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj slaying Afzal Khan, without obtaining permission for the hoarding through the local single window system. The prosecution further alleged that a speech delivered after permission for a DJ was refused was provocative, and that it led to a gathering, blocked roads and communal tension. Those are allegations recorded in the prosecution material, not findings of any court.
The Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Davanagere took cognizance on 17 March 2026 of offences under Sections 353(2), 189(2), 191(2), 292 and 132 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, along with Section 217(2), and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act 1981. In plain terms, that cluster covers statements said to conduce to public mischief, unlawful assembly, rioting and use of criminal force against a public servant, with the state disfigurement law added for the hoarding itself.
The petitioners argued that the banner depicted an actual historical event, the encounter at Pratapgad in 1659, so it could not be treated as a rumour or a statement of something untrue. They also argued that the depiction was protected by the exceptions built into Section 353 and by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, that the charge sheet did not allege any criminal force against the police, and that the prosecution showed mala fides and arbitrariness. The High Court stayed the proceedings until the next date of hearing.
Key takeaway. An interim stay is not an acquittal and it is not a quashing. It freezes the trial court proceedings while the High Court decides whether the case should continue at all. For the accused it ends the repeated court attendance, the warrants and the surety worry, which is often the heavier part of the burden.
The three provisions behind most hurt religious sentiments FIR cases
Three sections do almost all the work in this area, and each has been renumbered by the new criminal codes that replaced the Indian Penal Code. Knowing which one has been invoked tells you what the prosecution has to prove.
Section 153A IPC, now Section 196 BNS. This punishes promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence or language, and acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. The offence is about the effect on group relations, not about one person's feelings, and courts read the material complained of as a whole rather than picking out isolated lines.
Section 295A IPC, now Section 299 BNS. This is the classic outraging of religious feelings provision. It punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. The words deliberate and malicious are not decoration. They are the whole test.
Section 505 IPC, now Section 353 BNS. This deals with statements conducing to public mischief: publishing statements, rumours or reports likely to cause fear or alarm, or under sub-section (2), to create or promote enmity, hatred or ill will between classes. Section 353 carries an exception for a person who has reasonable grounds to believe the statement is true and publishes it in good faith without any such intent. That exception was at the centre of the argument in the Davanagere petition.
| Provision (old, then new) | What it punishes | Intent the prosecution must prove | Punishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 153A IPC, now Section 196 BNS | Promoting enmity between religious, racial, language or regional groups; acts prejudicial to harmony | Words or acts that promote or attempt to promote disharmony, judged from the whole material and its context, not stray lines | Up to three years, or fine, or both; up to five years and fine if committed in a place of worship |
| Section 295A IPC, now Section 299 BNS | Insulting religion or religious beliefs so as to outrage the feelings of a class of citizens | Deliberate and malicious intention. Careless, unwitting or merely tasteless insult is not enough | Up to three years, or fine, or both |
| Section 505(2) IPC, now Section 353(2) BNS | Publishing or circulating statements that create or promote enmity, hatred or ill will between classes | Intent or knowledge that the statement is likely to create enmity; good faith belief in the truth of the statement is an exception | Up to three years, or fine, or both; up to five years and fine if done in a place of worship |
All three are cognizable and non-bailable, which is why an FIR under them changes a person's life on the day it is registered rather than on the day of judgment. There is one filter. Under the old Code, Section 196 CrPC barred a court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 153A, 295A and 505(1) without prior sanction of the Central or State Government, and the BNSS carries that safeguard forward. Whether sanction was obtained is one of the first things a defence lawyer checks.
Before going further, the elements are worth holding in mind together, because almost every argument in these cases is built out of them.
Intent, not injury
Section 299 BNS, the old Section 295A IPC, punishes only deliberate and malicious insult to religion. The Supreme Court has said unwitting or careless insult falls outside the section.
Read as a whole
For Section 196 BNS, the old Section 153A, courts read the speech, book or banner in full and in its setting, rather than lifting out a single line or image.
Good faith exception
Section 353 BNS, the old Section 505, exempts a person with reasonable grounds to believe the statement is true who publishes it in good faith without intent to create enmity.
Sanction required
Prosecution for these speech offences needs prior government sanction before a court takes cognizance, a filter carried from the old Section 196 CrPC into the BNSS.
Why intent decides these cases, not injury to feeling
The leading authority on the point is short and blunt. In Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, decided on 20 April 2017, the Supreme Court quashed a complaint under Section 295A and held that the section does not penalise every act of insult to religion, but only acts perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings. Insults offered unwittingly, carelessly or without deliberate and malicious intent do not come within the section. The Court traced that reading back to the Constitution Bench decision in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), which upheld the validity of Section 295A precisely because it is confined to the aggravated form of insult.
The other case worth knowing is Amish Devgan v. Union of India, decided on 7 December 2020. There the Supreme Court declined to quash the FIRs, holding that disputed questions of fact could not be resolved before investigation, but it protected the petitioner from arrest and preserved his defences for trial. The judgment also sets out the factors that separate criminal hate speech from protected, even offensive, speech: whether the speech targets an identifiable group, whether the content expresses hatred toward it, the likelihood of harm, the speaker's intent to cause harm, whether incitement follows, the context and occasion, and whether the speech serves any legitimate purpose.
The two judgments make the same point from opposite ends. Dhoni shows that an absent intent kills the case. Amish Devgan shows that where intent is genuinely in dispute, the court will usually let the investigation run and protect liberty meanwhile. That is the middle ground an interim stay occupies.
Common mistake. Assuming that because a large number of people were offended, an offence must have been committed. Numbers are evidence of impact, not of intent. Equally mistaken is the reverse assumption, that no offence can arise from an image or a joke. Both propositions are too broad to survive a reading of the statute.
Historical depictions, art and why context is the whole argument
Historical scenes, mythology, satire, films and festival banners land in this area constantly, because the material is usually not an argument at all. It is an image or a performance, and its meaning depends on who displayed it, where, when and to whom. Three contextual questions tend to decide the outcome. First, the occasion. A depiction inside a museum, a textbook or a play is read differently from the same depiction on a ten foot flex board at a procession passing a place of worship. Second, the audience. Material aimed at people who already share the speaker's view carries a different risk than material aimed at a mixed crowd in a tense moment. Third, the accompanying conduct. A banner alone rarely produces a charge sheet. A banner plus a speech plus a crowd usually does, which is why the Davanagere prosecution pleads all three together.
The claim that a depiction is historically accurate is a real argument, and it was the petitioners' first point in the Karnataka case, because a true event can hardly be a rumour or a false report under Section 353. It is not a complete answer to every provision. Section 299 asks about the intention behind the display, and history can be deployed to insult a living community just as easily as it can be taught, so courts look at selection and framing, not only at whether the event happened. Similar reasoning appears when courts test comedy and parody, an issue we cover in our note on when satire crosses into criminal territory. Where the dispute is instead about the internal affairs of a religious denomination rather than about speech, a different constitutional axis applies, which we explain in our discussion of Article 25 and Article 26 rights.
What an accused person can do, in order
The sequence matters more than most people realise. Steps taken in the wrong order waste the strongest arguments. This is the order we normally work through in a criminal defence matter of this kind.
- Get the FIR and, if it exists, the charge sheet. The FIR copy tells you which sections were invoked and by whom, and you cannot argue about a case you have only read about in a forward.
- Secure liberty first. If arrest is a live risk, move for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, now Section 482 BNSS, before the Sessions Court or High Court. Our guide to anticipatory bail in India sets out what the application must contain.
- Check the sanction. Cognizance taken of an offence under Section 196 or Section 299 BNS without the required government sanction is a threshold defect, and often the shortest route out.
- File a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, before the High Court, arguing that even taken at face value the allegations do not disclose the necessary intent. The categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), relied on in the Dhoni judgment, remain the framework for when a court will interfere at this stage. We set out the mechanics in how to quash an FIR and in more detail in our note on quashing under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.
- Ask for interim stay of proceedings in the same petition. This is what the Karnataka High Court granted in the Davanagere matter on 16 August 2026. It is discretionary, it is usually until the next date, and it has to be kept alive by appearing on each date.
- Consider a writ petition under Article 226 where the grievance is about the process itself, for example multiple FIRs across states over one publication. Writ relief and Section 528 relief are often sought in the same petition.
- Preserve the material. Keep the original file, the upload timestamps, the permission applications, the event photographs and any takedown correspondence. Two years later this is what proves what was displayed.
Deadline warning. There is no limitation period for filing a quashing petition, but delay hurts. Once charges are framed and prosecution witnesses begin to depose, High Courts become noticeably more reluctant to interfere and will often say the defence should be tested at trial. The strongest moment for a Section 528 BNSS petition is between cognizance and the framing of charge.
When a complaint of this kind deserves to be taken seriously
It would be dishonest to treat every such FIR as harassment. These provisions exist because targeted vilification of a community is a real harm. The Amish Devgan factors are useful here too, read in the complainant's favour: speech that names an identifiable group, expresses hatred toward it, reaches an audience capable of acting on it, and carries a call to act, is not a free expression problem. It is the mischief the sections were drafted for.
Three markers separate a genuine complaint from a reflexive one. It identifies the specific words or image and explains why they attack a community rather than a belief, an institution or a historical figure. It shows a link between the speech and a real or threatened consequence. And it comes from someone affected, not from a person who located the material only after being told to be offended by it.
Taken together, the material above sorts into a short list of things that make one of these prosecutions hold, and the answers that most often defeat it.
| What the case turns on | What supports the prosecution | What defeats or weakens it |
|---|---|---|
| Intent | Under Section 299 BNS, a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings by insulting a religion or religious belief | Insult offered unwittingly, carelessly or without deliberate and malicious intent, which the 2017 Dhoni judgment places outside the section |
| Reading the material | The speech, book or banner read in full and in its setting, showing promotion of enmity or acts prejudicial to harmony under Section 196 BNS | A case built on a single line or image lifted out of the whole |
| Truth and good faith | A statement, rumour or report likely to cause fear or alarm, or to create or promote enmity, hatred or ill will between classes under Section 353 BNS | Reasonable grounds to believe the statement is true, published in good faith and without any such intent, which the section makes an exception |
| Conduct around the material | A banner together with a speech and a crowd | A banner alone, which rarely produces a charge sheet |
| Sanction | Prior sanction of the Central or State Government before a court takes cognizance, the filter carried from the old Section 196 CrPC into the BNSS | Cognizance taken without the required sanction, a threshold defect and often the shortest route out |
| The complaint itself | It identifies the specific words or image, explains why they attack a community rather than a belief, an institution or a historical figure, and shows a link to a real or threatened consequence | It comes from a person who located the material only after being told to be offended by it |
The practical reality: register first, question later
Here is the part that legal textbooks skip. A cognizable offence obliges the police to register an FIR on information disclosing that offence, so in a charged local situation the station will register and sort it out afterwards. That is not necessarily bad faith. It is the safest institutional choice for an officer facing a crowd on both sides.
The consequence is that the process becomes the punishment. Bail applications, sureties, monthly attendance, employer questions and reputational damage all arrive long before any court has looked at intent. In practice, what we see in Bangalore courts is that a large share of speech and sentiment prosecutions are ultimately resolved on legal grounds rather than after a full trial on evidence, which tells you how much of the real cost is front loaded into the process itself. The same structural problem, delay as the operative penalty, runs through the criminal system generally, including in the cases we discuss in our piece on why criminal trials against MPs and MLAs take decades.
Courts have pushed back in three ways, and it is worth knowing which one applies to your situation.
Quashing at the threshold
In the 2017 Dhoni case the Supreme Court quashed the complaint outright, holding that Section 295A does not cover insult offered without deliberate and malicious intent.
Stay of proceedings
The Karnataka High Court stayed the Davanagere proceedings on 16 August 2026 until the next hearing date, leaving the merits of the case open for later decision.
Protection from arrest
In Amish Devgan in 2020 the Supreme Court kept the FIRs alive but protected the petitioner from arrest, letting the investigation proceed without loss of liberty.
None of these is automatic. Each depends on the material on record, which is why the first hours of a case, when the FIR and the digital originals are collected, do more for the outcome than anything argued months later.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be arrested immediately in a hurt religious sentiments case?
Yes. Offences under Sections 196, 299 and 353 BNS, the old Sections 153A, 295A and 505 IPC, are cognizable and non-bailable, so police can arrest without a warrant. This is why anticipatory bail is usually the first application filed if arrest has not yet happened.
Does it matter that I did not intend to offend anyone?
It matters more than anything else. For Section 299 BNS the Supreme Court held in Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017) that only deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings is punishable, and that unwitting or careless insult falls outside the provision.
What is the difference between an interim stay and a quashing?
A quashing ends the prosecution. An interim stay only pauses the trial court proceedings while the High Court considers the quashing petition, and it is usually granted until the next date of hearing, as happened in the Davanagere matter on 16 August 2026.
Can several FIRs be registered in different states over one post?
Yes, and that is a recognised problem. In Amish Devgan the petitioner faced multiple FIRs in several states over a single broadcast. Consolidation or transfer can be sought from the Supreme Court, and protection from arrest is often granted in the meantime.
Does deleting the post or taking down the banner end the case?
No. Removal does not undo a cognizable offence that is alleged to have already been committed. It can still help, because it is evidence of the absence of a persistent malicious intention and it reduces the risk of fresh complaints.
Is government sanction really needed before prosecution?
For the core speech offences, yes. Under the old Section 196 CrPC a court could not take cognizance of offences under Sections 153A, 295A and 505(1) IPC without prior sanction of the Central or State Government, and the BNSS retains that requirement. Absence of valid sanction is a strong quashing ground.
Does it help that the image depicted a real historical event?
It is a serious argument, and it was the first point urged in the Karnataka petition, because a true event is hard to describe as a rumour or false report. It does not automatically answer a charge that turns on the intention behind displaying that image at that place and time.
How long does a quashing petition usually take?
Timelines vary widely by High Court and by the stage of the trial. In our experience these petitions typically take somewhere between six and eighteen months to reach final hearing, which is precisely why an interim stay at the admission stage is worth asking for.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice on your specific situation.
