The Allahabad High Court pulled up Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya for his interpretation of the couplets of Hindu holy book Ramcharitmanas and stressed that these should be understood in the right perspective.
Maurya had the right to give his own independent explanation different from explanations of many scholars but he cannot use such language which may disturb the religious feelings of a community, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court said.
The couplets should be understood in the right perspective and they should not be read in isolation like a provision of any law can be understood by reading it in entirety and not only a part of it, the bench said in a recent verdict delivered on October 31, but uploaded on the court’s website on November 6 (Monday).
When a couplet of the Ramcharitmanas is to be understood, it should be seen as to which character spoke and to whom and in which context , the bench said, adding that Maurya has a right to make his own independent explanation of the couplets of the Ramcharitmanas but he must refrain himself from using such words in his criticism which could incite the religious feelings of a community.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the above remarks in his judgment, while dismissing Maurya’s plea seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending in a Pratapgarh court for allegedly burning copies of the Ramcharitmanas. In the judgement, the bench interpreted two couplets of the Ramcharitmanas as per the understandings of the scholars.
Refusing to quash the criminal proceedings, the bench said that from the records, a prima facie case was made out against him and hence, the lower court’s proceedings cannot be set aside. Earlier, Maurya had defended his controversial explanations of the couplets and tried to convince the bench that he had the freedom of speech to criticise the couplets.
An FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint by lawyer Santosh Kumar Mishra against Maurya, SP MLA R K Verma and others. It was alleged in the FIR that the accused burnt copies of the Hindu holy book and thus committed the offence of disturbing communal harmony.
Police subsequently submitted a charge-sheet against Maurya and the lower court issued summons to the SP leader, asking him to appear before it and face the trial. Maurya had challenged these proceedings in the high court.
Opposing Maurya’s plea, Additional Advocate General V K Shahi and government advocate V K Singh argued that the SP leader habitually indulges in such acts to disturb communal harmony and prima facie evidence was available against him to make him stand on trial and hence, the lower court’s proceedings cannot be quashed.
Comments
0 comment