The Karnataka High Court on Friday refused to quash a criminal case against a man accused of publishing allegedly obscene and offensive depictions of Hindu deities in a WhatsApp group, holding that such acts are not protected under the right to free speech, The Indian Express reported.

A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by Sirajuddin, a resident of Dakshina Kannada district, who is accused in a 2021 case on charges of outraging religious feelings.

The case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by a resident of Belthangady taluk.

The complainant claimed that he joined a WhatsApp group through an invite link and found that allegedly obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were being repeatedly circulated, the Deccan Herald reported.

He said the group had six administrators and nearly 250 participants, and alleged that the content had been shared deliberately to insult religious beliefs and outrage religious feelings, The Indian Express reported.

After examining the investigation records and the images shared in the group, the court observed that the material was such that reproducing it in a judicial order would “itself be inappropriate”.

“The material on its face has the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony,” the court said.

The bench stated that even if an insult does not immediately result in disorder, any act with the propensity to disrupt public order falls within the scope of reasonable restrictions on free speech.

“In the garb of free speech anything and everything cannot be countenanced,” Nagaprasanna observed.

The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that prior sanction of the state government was required before registering an offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

“The sanction would be required only at the stage of cognizance and not for registration of a crime or conduct of investigation,” The Indian Express quoted the court as saying. “Investigation precedes prosecution.”

The High Court declined to interfere in the investigation into the matter, stating that premature intervention would amount to stifling a lawful inquiry into allegations of serious nature.

“If the investigation leads to any member being actively involved in permitting circulation of such pictures, they must be brought to book,” Nagaprasanna added.