'Can't Impose One's Religious Belief On Another': Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Man For Criticizing Muslim Girl's Handshake

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan stated that the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to follow religious practices in their own way and it is their personal choice. The Court stated that there are no compulsions in religion, especially in Islam. The Court further stated that one person cannot impose or compel another person to follow religious practices.

“In all religions, there are age old practices and conventions. Some may agree and some may disagree with those religious beliefs. Agree and disagree is part of our democratic principle and it is also a constitutional right of every citizen. One cannot impose his religious practice on another and it is a personal choice of every citizen. If the prosecution case is correct and proved through cogent evidence, it is a serious thing which will definitely intrude on the personal liberty of the second respondent.”

In this case, the de facto complainant is a law graduate. Her case is that while she was in second year of college, the then Finance Minister, Dr Thomas Issac visited her college. The de facto complainant asked a question to Dr Issac during the interactive session. The students who asked questions were given gifts by calling them to the stage and the de facto complainant also received a gift after giving handshake to the Finance Minister. This program was video graphed by media and shown live in various channels.

The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner made a Facebook post and a WhatsApp video was also circulated by him alleging that she violated Shariat law by shaking hands with the Finance Minister.

The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner committed offences punishable under Section 153 of IPC and Section 119 (a) of the Kerala Police Act. She alleged that the post and video made by him brought disgrace to her family.

The Court noted that shaking hands is a traditional gesture and in modern times it is seen as a sign of confidence and professionalism.

The Court further noted that in Muslim religion, physical contact including a handshake, between a woman and unrelated man is seen as forbidden or Haram.

In this context, the Court observed that even Quranic verses gives emphasis to personal choice of an individual. It said, “Surah Al-Kafirun (109:6) says, “For you is your religion, and for me is my religion”. Surah Al- Baqarah (2:256) says that “There is no compulsion in religion”.

Observing that religious beliefs are personal, the Court asked, “What is the business of the petitioner to attack the 2nd respondent when the 2nd respondent voluntarily decided to give a handshake to the Hon'ble Minister while accepting a gift for participating in a discussion?"

The Court stated that the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion to all and that the de facto complainant also has the right to follow her religious beliefs in her own way.

Court said, “None can impose a religious belief of his own on another. Therefore, if the allegation against the petitioner is correct, the same cannot be accepted in India, where the Indian Constitution is supreme.”

The Court added that the Constitution protects the interest of the de facto complainant who alleges that the petitioner has violated her personal freedom of religious belief.

Court added, “our constitution will protect her interest. Moreover, it is the duty of the society to support her. No religious belief is above the constitution and the constitution is supreme”

The Court stated that whether offences under Section 153 of the IPC and Section 119 (a) of the Kerala Police Act were committed must be decided by the Trial Court during the trial. It thus stated that the present facts do make out a case for the Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

It stated that the petitioner can be honourably acquitted if he is proven to be innocent by the jurisdictional court after facing the trial.

As such, the Court dismissed the petition by noting that there are no merits in it. It also directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

 Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate V A Vinod

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith T R

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 2575 OF 2018

Case Title: Abdul Noushad @ Noushad Ahsani v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 620

Click Here To Read/Download Order