Latest
Friday, October 30, 2026
High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Criminal Law

"Yaarian 2" Song Showing Non-Amritdhari Actor With Sri Sahib Not Insult to Sikhism: P&H High Court Quashes FIR

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a Jalandhar FIR under Section 295-A IPC against the directors, producer and actor of the film "Yaarian 2" over a song showing a clean-shaven, non-Amritdhari actor wearing the Sri Sahib (Kirpan) (paras 1-2, 18). The inadvertent portrayal, an expression of creative liberty, was not a deliberate and malicious insult to the Sikh religion, and mens rea was lacking (para 14).

"Yaarian 2" Song Showing Non-Amritdhari Actor With Sri Sahib Not Insult to Sikhism: P&H High Court Quashes FIR
File photo: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Photo: Nk8595 Source: Wikimedia Commons Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0

Judgment Intelligence

FIR Quashed
Radhika Rao & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M)
Court
High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Date of Decision
7 September 2026
Bench
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal
Relevant Acts & Sections
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 295-A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482
Final Outcome

Petition allowed; FIR No. 85 dated 30.08.2023 under Section 295-A IPC, Police Station Division 4, Jalandhar, and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioners (paras 17-18).

Source High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided 07.09.2026

Key holdings

  1. Section 295-A requires a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings (paras 9-10).
  2. Insults offered unwittingly or carelessly fall outside Section 295-A (Ramji Lal Modi) (para 10).
  3. A song in a film is an expression of creative liberty and artistic instinct (para 14).
  4. One individual's grievance cannot portray the sentiments of an entire community (para 14).
  5. The second-FIR plea failed because this FIR was registered first (para 16).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

FIR No. 85 of 30.08.2023 at Jalandhar alleged that a "Yaarian 2" song released by T-Series on YouTube showed actor Neezaan Jafri, clean shaven, wearing the Sri Sahib, one of the five Kakaars, which Sikh custom reserves for Amritdharis, and that the directors and producer hurt Sikh sentiments (paras 1-2). The petitioners said the portrayal was inadvertent, the visuals had been removed and they had apologised (paras 3-4, 15). The State argued that specific allegations made quashing premature (para 5).

Court's Findings

Applying Bhajan Lal, the Court set out the ingredients of Section 295-A: an insult or attempt to insult the religion or beliefs of a class of citizens, made with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging their feelings, by words, signs or visible representation (paras 7-9). Relying on Ramji Lal Modi, it noted that insults offered unwittingly or carelessly fall outside the section, a view followed in M.S. Dhoni and Priya Prakash Varrier, and that artistic licence protects creative expression, as observed in Manohar Lal Sharma (paras 10-13). It held that picturising a non-Amritdhari Sikh wearing a Sri Sahib could not be termed an insult to the Sikh religion: the inadvertent portrayal could not be regarded by an ordinary prudent mind as grossly offensive or provocative, and one individual's grievance cannot portray the sentiments of the entire community (para 14). It rejected the second-FIR plea, as this FIR was the earlier one (para 16).

Legal Principle

Section 295-A IPC punishes only insults to religion made with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings. An inadvertent portrayal in a film song, an exercise of creative liberty, lacks the required mens rea, and an FIR disclosing no such offence can be quashed under Bhajan Lal (paras 9-10, 14, 17).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 4, 7, 17

    Categories in which FIRs may be quashed, including where the allegations taken at face value disclose no offence.

  2. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. Petition No. 252 of 1956, decided 05.04.1957
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 10

    Section 295-A punishes only aggravated insults made with deliberate and malicious intention; careless or unwitting insults are outside it.

  3. Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 23 of 2016, decided 20.04.2017
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 11

    Not every act of insult falls within Section 295-A; only deliberate and malicious ones do.

View all precedents (6)
  1. Priya Prakash Varrier & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 44 of 2018, decided 31.08.2018
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 12

    Picturisation of a song with a wink did not amount to an insult to religion under Section 295-A.

  2. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 770
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13

    Creative expression on celluloid enjoys artistic licence as part of freedom of expression.

  3. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2001, decided 12.07.2001
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 3, 16

    Bar on a second FIR for the same offence; inapplicable because this FIR was the earlier one.

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 2 min read
Decided: September 7, 2026 Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal
PDF
Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt