The principle of freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies. Enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, it grants individuals the right to express their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions freely. However, this freedom is not absolute—it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which includes limitations to protect public order, decency, morality, and the sovereignty and integrity of India, as well as to prevent defamation and incitement to an offence.
The tension between freedom of speech and protection of religious sentiments becomes acute when expression involves religious figures or symbols, especially in a pluralistic society like India, where religion is deeply interwoven with cultural identity.
The 2025 decision of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Paramasivan v. Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Thoothukudi provides a critical judicial reflection on this tension. The case revolved around allegedly derogatory depictions of Lord Krishna on social media, raising questions on whether such depictions can ever be justified as an exercise of free expression.
Factual Background of the Case
On 19 August 2022, an individual identified as Sathish Kumar posted a controversial image on Facebook. The image depicted several girls bathing nude in a pool, with Lord Krishna watching them from the top of a tree, accompanied by two Tamil captions.
The complainant, P. Paramasivan, alleged that:
- The post misrepresented Hindu mythology.
- It defamed Hindu Gods and insulted Hindu women.
- It could cause communal disharmony and disturb public order.
Following the complaint, an FIR was registered in Crime No. 41 of 2022 under:
- Sections 298, 504, 505(2) IPC (hurting religious sentiments, intentional insult, promoting enmity between groups)
- Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (publishing obscene material in electronic form).
Procedural History
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the investigation by the Cyber Crime Police Station was limited. They sent requests to Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook) seeking user details, IP logs, and account verification information. Meta refused, citing the need for a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) request or Letter Rogatory.
Rather than pursuing alternate legal or diplomatic channels, the police closed the case as ‘undetected’ and filed a final report to that effect on 25 February 2025.
The Magistrate accepted the report on 19 March 2025, noting that the complainant did not appear or file objections. However, court records indicated the complainant had indeed appeared through counsel and raised objections.
Aggrieved, the complainant filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Madras High Court.
Legal Issues Before the High Court
- Whether the Magistrate’s acceptance of the ‘undetected’ report was legally valid.
- Whether the police had conducted a proper and diligent investigation.
- Whether depictions of Hindu Gods in a derogatory manner can be justified under the right to freedom of expression.
Court’s Observations
1. On the ‘Undetected’ Final Report
The Court referred to the Full Bench ruling in Chinnathambi @ Subramani v. State (2017 Crl LJ 2143), which clarified that:
- An ‘undetected’ report is not a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC.
- It is more akin to an interim report, indicating that the investigation is ongoing.
- Such a report does not terminate the investigation; further investigation is permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC.
Thus, by accepting the undetected report and closing the case, the Magistrate had prematurely terminated the investigation.
2. On the Magistrate’s Handling of Objections
The High Court noted a serious procedural flaw:
- Court records clearly showed that the complainant appeared and raised objections.
- Yet, the Magistrate’s order falsely stated that no objections were filed.
- The objections were not considered before closing the case.
This amounted to non-application of mind and procedural irregularity.
3. On the Police Investigation
The Court was critical of the police for:
- Limiting their investigation to sending a single request to Meta.
- Failing to explore alternative legal avenues to obtain data.
- Neglecting to verify publicly available details on the accused’s Facebook page.
- Filing the report mechanically without exhausting all investigative options.
4. On Freedom of Expression v. Religious Sensitivities
Perhaps the most significant portion of the judgment dealt with the substantive issue—whether the impugned social media post could be shielded by freedom of expression.
The Court firmly observed that portraying Hindu Gods in a vulgar or derogatory manner, particularly with the deliberate intent to wound the religious sentiments of devotees, falls outside the protective ambit of free speech. Such depictions, the Court noted, are not merely offensive but carry the real and dangerous potential to incite enmity among communities, trigger public outrage, and disturb the delicate fabric of communal harmony.
While acknowledging that freedom of expression is a fundamental right central to a democratic society, the Court stressed that this liberty is not absolute and cannot be misused as a shield for hate speech or intentional denigration of religion. It further emphasised that the State bears a constitutional duty to safeguard against such targeted acts of disrespect, ensuring that the right to express does not erode the equally vital right of communities to dignity and peaceful coexistence.
Mythological Context
The Court briefly acknowledged the traditional interpretation of the Krishna and Gopis story:
- Often viewed as symbolic, representing detachment from materialism and devotion to the divine.
- However, in this case, the post went far beyond a theological representation and was intended to mock and degrade.
Thus, context and intent were crucial—the Court was not evaluating the religious story but the manner of portrayal.
Final Ruling
The High Court:
- Set aside the Magistrate’s order accepting the undetected report.
- Directed the police to continue and complete the investigation within three months.
- Emphasised the need for sensitivity in matters involving religion.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice K. Murali Shankar stated:
“Depicting Hindu Gods in a disrespectful manner, intentionally hurting the sentiments of millions, cannot be justified. Such actions have the potential to spark enmity, religious outrage, social disorder, and undermine communal harmony. Given the deep-rooted respect for religious symbols and deities, disrespect can lead to social unrest and hurt a large section of society. Therefore, it is crucial to approach such depictions with sensitivity. The Government must ensure that freedom of expression does not translate into hurting religious feelings.”
Implications of the Judgment
- Strengthening Investigations in Cybercrime Cases: The ruling highlights the need for proactive cyber investigations, particularly where social media and foreign entities are involved.
- Reaffirming Boundaries of Free Speech: While artistic and critical expressions are protected, deliberate insults to religious figures with no redeeming social value will not find constitutional shelter.
- Judicial Oversight: Magistrates must actively examine objections before accepting closure reports.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s judgment in P. Paramasivan v. Inspector of Police serves as a reminder that freedom of expression is a shield, not a sword. In a diverse society like India, respect for religious beliefs is not just a matter of courtesy but a constitutional necessity for preserving harmony.
While dissent, critique, and reinterpretation of religious texts are permissible within the democratic framework, mockery and obscenity targeting deities with the intent to offend have no place under the protective canopy of Article 19(1)(a).
This ruling reaffirms that the right to speak ends where the right to dignity and peace of a community begins.