Plea against Aamir Khan for his comments on ‘intolerance’ was dismissed : Chhattisgarh HC

Plea against Aamir Khan for his comments on ‘intolerance’ was dismissed : Chhattisgarh HC

A criminal petition filed against Actor Aamir Khan, seeking action to be taken for his comments on ‘growing intolerance’ in the nation after 2014.

While hearing a plea, a single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay K Agarwal has dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petition is ‘substanceless and meritless. The bench said, 

“I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, being substanceless and meritless as well,”

The petition hearing before the Chhattisgarh High Court was filed by a lawyer, Dipak Diwan. Earlier, Diwan has also filed a criminal complaint against Aamir Khan for his remarks on ‘intolerance’. It was alleged that the actor under Section 153A, 153B of IPC, had attempted to promote enmity between various groups on the grounds of religion, place of birth etc, and made imputations prejudicial to national integration. 

A criminal petition filed against Actor Aamir Khan, seeking action to be taken for his comments on ‘growing intolerance’ in the nation after 2014.

While hearing a plea, a single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay K Agarwal has dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petition is ‘substanceless and meritless. The bench said, 

“I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, being substanceless and meritless as well,”

The petition hearing before the Chhattisgarh High Court was filed by a lawyer, Dipak Diwan. Earlier, Diwan has also filed a criminal complaint against Aamir Khan for his remarks on ‘intolerance’. It was alleged that the actor under Section 153A, 153B of IPC, had attempted to promote enmity between various groups on the grounds of religion, place of birth etc, and made imputations prejudicial to national integration. 

Once, in 2015 at Award ceremony, Actor has spoken out that he felt alarmed by incidents of intolerance happens in India and that his wife Kiran Rao too suggested that they should leave the country. He had also said that it was important for political parties to take a stand and a “sense of insecurity grows when we don’t see that happening.”

Actor Aamir Khan made his statements against the backdrop of the Dadri lynching case, where an elderly man was lynched on the suspicion that he was consuming and storing beef.

Taking this under Consideration, Diwan has proceeded with specific grievance that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of his complaint for criminal offences under Section 153-A and Section 153-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Ultimately, the Magistrate’s order dismissing the complaint because of the lack of sanction was affirmed by the High Court. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge confirming the Magistrate’s decision was also upheld by the High Court.

The High Court referenced judicial precedents and concluded that the Magistrate had, in fact, taken cognizance of Diwan’s complaint.

Therefore, the High Court has found error as the Magistrate had applied his judicial mind in order to proceed in a certain way, cognizance was taken. The Judge added that this error,rendered the entire criminal proceedings without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

Once, in 2015 at Award ceremony, Actor has spoken out that he felt alarmed by incidents of intolerance happens in India and that his wife Kiran Rao too suggested that they should leave the country. He had also said that it was important for political parties to take a stand and a “sense of insecurity grows when we don’t see that happening.”

Actor Aamir Khan made his statements against the backdrop of the Dadri lynching case, where an elderly man was lynched on the suspicion that he was consuming and storing beef.

Taking this under Consideration, Diwan has proceeded with specific grievance that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of his complaint for criminal offences under Section 153-A and Section 153-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Ultimately, the Magistrate’s order dismissing the complaint because of the lack of sanction was affirmed by the High Court. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge confirming the Magistrate’s decision was also upheld by the High Court.

The High Court referenced judicial precedents and concluded that the Magistrate had, in fact, taken cognizance of Diwan’s complaint.

Therefore, the High Court has found error as the Magistrate had applied his judicial mind in order to proceed in a certain way, cognizance was taken. The Judge added that this error,rendered the entire criminal proceedings without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

Previous articleCentre : Additional Sessions Judge-02 as Human Rights Court in each Delhi District
Next articleSupreme Court allows four weeks to its Secretary General to file response
I am T. Madiha, a final year student of BA.LL.B from Osmania University, Hyderabad. I'm spontaneous, attentive, and a good observer. I always would like to express my prior concern in research & writing skills as it enhance me to grow for the future endeavours in the legal field. I strongly believe in Theodore Roosevelt quote by focusing on my actions rather than words as he once said - "Do what you can with all you have, wherever you are". I have sole interests on various spheres of law and wants to change the societal issues for better world. I love to live in a dynamic environment where people help others to develop their skills, my suggestions have actively been taken up in the same.