The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash a first information report filed against Rashtriya Janata Dal spokesperson Priyanka Bharti for allegedly tearing pages of the Manusmriti during a live television debate.

The Manusmriti is a Hindu scripture authored by an ascetic named Manu. The text has been widely criticised for its gender and caste-based codes.

In its February 28 order, a bench of Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Anish Kumar Gupta said that the act of tearing a “holy book of a particular religion in a live TV debate which was being organised by the two TV channels.....was nothing but prima facie, reflection of a malicious and deliberate intention of the petitioner and is an act done without any lawful excuse or without any just cause”.

It added: “Therefore, in our opinion, prima facie a cognisable offence is made out.”

Bharti had been booked under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly tearing the pages of the Manusmriti during a live debate organised by the news channels India TV and TV9 Bharatvarsh in December. She subsequently filed a petition in the court seeking to quash the FIR.

Section 299 pertains to “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class.

In her petition, Bharti, who is also a PhD student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, said that there was no intention or deliberate attempt on her part to insult any religious sentiments, Live Law reported.

The petition said that the alleged incident took place during the debate when she was being asked certain questions. Her act did not amount to affecting public order, the Rashtriya Janata Dal spokesperson added.

The court, however, referred to a verdict issued by the Supreme Court in a case related to news anchor Amish Devgan. It noted that the top court refused to quash the FIRs filed against him for an alleged hate speech during the telecast of a live show.

The verdict held that speeches by influential persons such as political leaders or media figures carried greater credibility and impact than those of ordinary persons, the High Court said. Such speeches should not incite hatred or violence, the bench quoted the verdict as saying.

The High Court also said that paragraph 76 of the judgement noted that persons of influence had a duty to be responsible due to their reach and were expected to be cautious with their words on account of their potential impact.

The bench said that it could not ignore the fact that Bharti was a “highly qualified person and was taking part as a spokesperson of a political party and thus, it can not be pleaded that the act was done ignorantly”.