Last Updated:
A case was registered against Bharti Singh, Shekhar Suman and other accused under sections 295 and 3 of the Indian Penal Code. Bombay High Court said that there is nothing in this case which can be called crime. Standup comedy should not be compared to serious speech.
FIR against Bharti Singh and Shekhar Suman cancelled.
Mumbai: The FIR lodged against comedian Bharti Singh and actor Shekhar Suman was cancelled. Both of them were accused of hurting religious sentiments during a comedy show aired on Sony Entertainment Channel. Bombay High Court said that there is nothing in this case which can be called crime. Standup comedy should not be compared to serious speech. An FIR was registered against Bharti and Shekhar in the year 2010. Apart from Bharti and Shekhar, a script writer was made an accused in this.
This FIR was registered on the complaint of a representative of Raza Academy. The complaint said that Bharti Singh had joked on a verse of the Quran in the comedy show ‘Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo’, which was co-hosted by Shekhar Suman, and it was objectionable to Islam. According to the complainant, Shekhar had also repeated the same verse after Bharti. According to Times of India, Bharti had said during the performance, “Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!”
Bharti Singh, Shekhar Suman and other accused were booked under sections 295 (injuring or desecrating a place of worship with intent to insult any religion) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. Bharti Singh and Shekhar Suman’s lawyer Nitin Pradhan argued that both were only playing the role of judge and performing artist, hence the police investigation was completely unnecessary, unfair and undesirable. He said, “This program was for light entertainment and there was no intention to hurt or insult the religious sentiments of any class or community.”
Additional Public Prosecutor Megha Bajoria said that considering the seriousness of the allegations, whether the petitioners have committed the alleged crime or not will be examined during the trial. However, the single bench of Justice Amit Borkar rejected the FIR, saying that the purpose of the performers and judges in such programs is to make people laugh and they are not in the position of a speaker to make announcements against any religious group.
The court made it clear that the role alleged against the two was too far-fetched to fall within the ambit of the allegations made by the complainant and no evidence was found against them to prove their deliberate or malicious intent. The bench said, “This performance was like theatre, the purpose of which was entertainment. It does not automatically give rise to any criminality.” The court said that continuing the criminal proceedings against him would be an abuse of process.
