Calling someone a “Pakistani” or “Miyan-Tiyan” – derogatory terms that some use to describe Muslims – may be in poor taste but does not amount to the offence of hurting religious sentiments, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation on February 11 while closing a case against a person accused of using the two terms against a government servant.

The complainant used to be an Urdu translator and acting clerk for Right to Information in the sub-divisional office in Jharkhand’s Chas.

The person accused in the matter, Hari Nandan Singh, had sought information under the Right to Information Act from the additional collector.

An appellate authority had directed the complainant to personally provide the information sought under RTI to Singh.

According to the complainant, when he visited Singh’s home to hand over the information, Singh allegedly abused him by making a reference to his religion. Singh also allegedly “used criminal force against him while he was discharging his official duties, with the intention of intimidating and deterring him from performing his duties as a public servant”, according to the court order.

A first information report was filed against Singh under sections of the Indian Penal Code for hurting religious sentiments (section 298), insult with intent to provoke breach of peace (504), criminal intimidation (506), assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging duty (353) and voluntarily causing hurt (323).

After the chargesheet was filed, Singh filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision allows magistrates to discharge accused persons on charges deemed to be groundless.

In March 2022, the magistrate ruled that there was material available on record for framing charges against Singh. However, Singh was discharged by the magistrate for criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing hurt, citing lack of evidence.

The sessions court and the Rajasthan High Court dismissed Singh’s challenge to the magistrate’s order.

The Supreme Court ruled that because there had been no assault, the High Court should have discharged the appellant under section 353. The appellant also could not be charged under section 504 because he had committed no act that may have provoked breach of peace, the court said.

The court said that while the remarks made by the appellant were in poor taste, it was not an offence under section 298.

As a result, the person accused in the matter was discharged of all charges.