Qamar Hasnain vs Syed Waseem Rizvi & Ors.

Sanjeev Narula, J

Aggrieved with an online self-publication titled “Muhammadâ€, purportedly authored by Defendant No.1, Plaintiff has approached this Court

seeking orders restraining Defendant No. 1 from making derogatory, demeaning and incendiary statements against the religion of Islam, the Holy

Qur’an and Prophet Mohammed and other revered personages. The suit contains following prayers:

“a) Pass a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendant No. 1, thereby restraining the Defendant No. 1 from making

statements and / or publishing remarks that are lascivious, prurient derogatory and hurtful, against the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the religion of

Islam, its followers, its tenets and/or against the Holy Qur'an;

b) Pass a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendant No. 1, thereby restraining the Defendant No. 1 from selling, letting to

hire, distributing, publicly exhibiting, or in any manner putting into circulation for the purpose of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition, circulation

and/or promotion, copies of the book titled Muhammad in any way and through any medium, including but not limited to the form of a paperback,

hardcover, or any other print media as well as in the form of digital media in any way;

c) Pass a decree against the Defendant No. 1 directing the Defendant No. 1 to recall all copies of the abovementioned book and to destroy all copies

of the said book, sold or unsold;

d) Pass a decree against the Defendant No. 1 and in favour of the Plaintiff, awarding damages to the Plaintiff amounting to a sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/-

to the Plaintiff payable by the Defendant No. 1, or any amount deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, with a view

to discourage the Defendant No. 1 from committing similar offences in the future;

e) Pass a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction and declaration against the Defendant nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, directing them to remove all

objectionable posts and comments from their respective social media platforms and to remove all such objectionable content from results on their

respective search engines, issued by or attributed to the Defendant No. 1 and to take steps to ensure the curbing of the spread of hateful and

inflammatory content on and through their respective platforms;

f) Pass a decree awarding costs of the suit to the Plaintiff;

g) Pass any other/further order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.â€​

Plaintiff states that he is a responsible and concerned citizen of India, a religious scholar, and a concerned follower of Islam. He avers that he

represents the interests and concerns of the Shia community at large and is on a personal mission to create inter-religious dialogue and promote

communal harmony.

Defendant No. 1 is purportedly the author of the impugned book. Defendant No. 2 is Facebook India Online Services Private Limited, Defendant

No. 3 is WhatsApp Application Services Private Limited, Defendant No. 4 is Google India Private Limited and Defendant No. 5 is Twitter

Communications India Private Limited. The relief qua Defendants No. 2 to 5, as sought in prayer (e), are only consequential reliefs founded on prayer

(a).

Predominantly, paragraphs 2-7 and 10-11 of the plaint are only regarding the character and antecedents of Defendant No. 1, which, according to

the Plaintiff, are facetious. Plaintiff is primarily aggrieved by the contents of the impugned book, which according to him, are damaging to communal

peace and harmony, and uses derogatory and denigrating language against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). [Peace Be Upon Him.] It is also contended

by the Plaintiff that contents of the book are offensive, hateful and distressing to even a casual reader, let alone a follower of Islam or an admirer of

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Plaintiff avers that the Defendant No. 1 is not protected under the ambit of the fundamental right to Freedom of

Speech and Expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950. The averments in the plaint, which sum up the cause

of action, are extracted hereinbelow:

“8. That most recently the Defendant No. 1 committed acts and uttered statements that are clearly damaging to communal peace and

harmony, being derogatory and denigrating the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), in pursuance of the release of a book titled Muhammad,

wherein the Defendant No. 1 has used derogatory and hurtful language against the Prophet. The contents of the said book are so offensive

that they would be distressing to even the casual reader, let alone a follower of the religion of Islam or any person being an admirer of the

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Therein, the Defendant No. 1 has laid slander upon slander, accusing the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) of

being mentally unstable, being a womanizer, and using force and violence to satisfy his whims and to consolidate power. The Defendant No.

1 has used such vitriolic and venomous words and made such slanderous and calumnious statements against one of the most revered and

influential personalities of the world that make the stomach turn and make the blood boil. Such statements and remarks made by the

Defendant No. 1 are only indicative of the Defendant No. l's own ignorance and vileness, having made such libelous remarks against the

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It is pertinent to note that the Defendant No. 1 is and was fully aware of the status and sanctity afforded to

the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by Muslims worldwide, having been a member of the Muslim community himself, however superficially, and

was thus conscious of the ramifications and consequences of his malicious acts and words. It is further respectfully submitted that since

Defendant No. 1 also unfortunately belongs to Shia community therefore, the acts and deeds of Defendant No. 1, as enumerated in detail in

foregoing paras of the plaint, are detrimental to the interests of Shia community in India as a wider message is being propagated that the

entire Shia community is being represented by the Defendant No. 1 and [(PBUH)- Peace Be Upon Him] further, that the said Shia

community is indulged into maligning and demeaning the religion as well as Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Further, it is respectfully

submitted that the conduct of the Defendant No. 1 is prejudicial to the inter-community harmony.

xx … xx … xx

That the Plaintiff being a scholar as well as being a follower of the religion of Islam is directly affected by the hurtful acts and words of

the Defendant No. 1 and have thus approached this Hon'ble Court with a view to seek remedy for the agony and pain caused by the

Defendant No. 1 by making the abovementioned statements. The Plaintiff represents the concerned citizens of India as well as religious

followers of religion of Islam and as such seeks kind indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to restrain the Defendant No. 1 from continuing with

his nefarious designs and ulterior motives aimed towards purposely demeaning and maligning the religion of Islam, Prophet Muhammad

(PBUH).

xx … xx … xx

That it is respectfully submitted that the purposeful derogatory and demeaning words in the form of interviews and the purported book,

as mentioned above, being published by the Defendant No. 1 could not be said to be protected by the fundamental right of right to freedom

of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India as the said demeaning, slanderous and libelous

statements being made by the Defendant No. 1 are being purposely done to incite communal disharmony. It is submitted that there exists a

fine line between right to freedom of speech and expression and license to insult. Itn is further submitted that the said fundamental right

pertaining to freedom of speech and expression, by no stretch of imagination, allows any person to enjoy ""Freedom of hate speech"". The

Defendant No. 1, purposely and willfully, is trying to ignite communal tension across the country for his wrongful gains. It is further

submitted that the Defendant No. 1, being a notorious criminal, having been charged with serious cognizable offences, is a threat to public

policy and law and order situation and if the Defendant No. 1 is not restrained, in terms of the prayer as prayed for in the present Suit, the

acts and deeds of Defendant No. 1, in addition to maligning, defaming and demeaning the religion of Islam, could also lead to serious law

and order issues. It is further submitted that the fundamental of right of right to freedom and expression is not an absolute right and is

indeed subject to restrictions. It is further submitted that as per a catena of judgments propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various

Hon'ble High Courts, it is well settled that the said fundamental right, as mentioned foregoing, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable

restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of the nation, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order,

decency and morality, and contempt of Court, defamation and incitement to an offence.â€​

[emphasis supplied]

Initially, as filed, the suit was based on the introduction of the impugned book, which was annexed with the plaint. However, subsequently, vide an

application under Order VII, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter, “CPCâ€] the counsel for the Plaintiff filed the book in

its entirety, as downloaded from the relevant website. While the said application is not listed, since a physical copy of the publication was handed over

to the learned Court Master yesterday, the same is taken on record.

Without going into the merits of the case, ex facie, it is noticed that the plaint does not invoke any provision of the CPC under which the Plaintiff

has filed the instant suit. Prayer (a) is clearly in the capacity of a representative action, and further since the plaint states at paragraph 12 that he

“represents the concerned citizens of India as well as religious followers of religion of Islamâ€, the Court has queried Dr. Farrukh Khan, counsel

for the Plaintiff, apropos its maintainability. Initially, the matter was listed yesterday, and Dr. Khan took a day’s time to respond on this issue.

Today, in his reply, Dr. Khan has placed reliance on Sections 9 and 19 of CPC, which, in the opinion of the Court, are not relevant and do not confer

any maintainability upon the present suit, as discussed hereinafter.

A representative suit for a public nuisance or other wrongful acts affecting, or likely to affect the public, has to fulfil the requirements of law and it

needs to be specifically averred. For such suits, amongst other requirements as provided under Section 91 of CPC, a suit if not filed by the Advocate

General, has to be filed by two or more persons with the leave of the Court. Under this provision, a party can perhaps approach the Court for an illegal

act which in its nature tends to cause injury of public at large. However, for a representative action, it is indispensable that reliance is placed upon

such provisions of the statute. No such pleadings are found in the instant case. Thus, during the course of the hearing, the Court put to Dr. Khan a

question as to whether the scope of the present suit lies within Section 91 or Order I, Rule 8 of CPC. Dr. Khan responded by affirming that the

present suit was not filed under either of the provisions. Rather, he argued that the Plaintiff has approached in his individual capacity and seeks to

exercise a right in rem as he is aggrieved by an insult to his religious sentiments. Dr. Khan also argued that the objectionable content of the impugned

book harms his personal reputation as a Muslim.

Indeed, the Plaintiff has not invoked Order I, Rule 8 or Section 91 of the CPC, and thus, the present suit does not fall within the purview of the

afore-noted provisions. In these circumstances, the suit lacks foundation particularly since the reliefs sought are representative and not in personam.

Yet, the Court is willing to consider Dr. Khan’s other arguments to find a tinge of maintainability in the present matter. Section 9 of CPC

provides that Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits, subject to the provisions contained in the Code, excepting suits, the cognizance of which is

either expressly or impliedly barred. Thus, when a legal right and its infringement is alleged and disclosed, a Civil Court is bound to take cognizance.

Obliged by such a duty under law, the Court shall now attempt to probe into the Plaintiff’s legal right arising from the facts as disclosed.

On the afore-noted issue, the Court notes that, first, the decree for damages as sought by the Plaintiff is purely a right in personam. Further, the

Plaintiff is seeking permanent and mandatory injunction on behalf of the followers of the religion of Islam â€" which is a right in rem. For such reliefs,

the Court has also gone to the length of considering if such an action can lie in tort law. To maintain such a suit, it is essential that there should be a

personal legal right, a corresponding personal legal injury, and an act which gives rise to legal or actual damage. Guided by the fact that Dr. Khan

admits to there being no reference/ remarks/ allegations of a derogatory or defamatory nature against the person of the Plaintiff; and further that the

remarks/ allegations as alleged to be made are against his religion and its tenets as a whole, the Court is of the opinion that the plaint certainly does not

disclose any such legal right. Any injury or hurt to personal religious sentiments of the Plaintiff are not an actionable wrong under the law of torts. At

best, a case may have been made under provisions of criminal law, which has certainly neither been pleaded nor would bestow any maintainability to

the case before this Court.

No caselaw has been shown by Mr. Khan in support of the proposition advanced by him. A vague mention was made to an Allahabad High Court

case from 1918, but even after granting a pass-over today, the same could not be produced before the Court. A reference was also made to Law

Commission Report No. 267 on ‘Hate Speech’, which too, is of no consequence. Though the fulcrum of the Plaintiff’s argument centres

around the reasonable restrictions to the Defendant’s right of freedom of speech and expression, these are arguments on merits, and once the

jurisdiction of this Court is ousted, the same cannot be examined by this Court in the present proceedings.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of disclosure of infringement of any legal right, the Plaintiff’s

prayer seeking injunction and damages on account of being offended or aggrieved by the contents of a book â€" which allegedly is hurtful to his

religious sentiments â€" would not give him any right to approach this Court by way of the present suit.

No other provision under law has been shown to the Court which can come to the assistance of the Plaintiff to maintain the present suit, and

accordingly, it is held that the present suit is not maintainable. The plaint is liable to be rejected.

Before parting, the Court would like to underscore that while the present suit has been deemed as not maintainable, the merits or contents of the

impugned book have not been examined, and the Plaintiff is entitled to exercise all his rights and remedies under the law. The Court, in fact, has not

even called upon the counsel for the Plaintiff to make any submissions on the contents of the said book and has only examined the present suit on the

question of maintainability.

The plaint is thus rejected for the afore-going reasons. Pending applications are also disposed of.

The file is consigned to the record room.