Supreme Court Says ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani’ Remarks in Poor Taste, Not a Crime

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling today, stating that calling someone ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ or ‘Pakistani’ might be rude but does not qualify as a criminal offence under laws protecting religious sentiments. The decision came from a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, who closed a case against a man accused of insulting a government worker in Jharkhand.

The case began when an Urdu translator and acting clerk filed a complaint, alleging the accused abused him by using these terms during a visit to deliver Right to Information (RTI) documents. The clerk claimed the remarks hurt his religious feelings and disrupted his duties. This led to charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 298 for wounding religious sentiments and Section 353 for obstructing a public servant.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed. “The statements are undoubtedly in poor taste,” the bench noted, “but they don’t amount to hurting the informant’s religious sentiments.” The court also found no evidence of assault or force to justify charges under Section 353, nor any act that could spark public unrest under Section 504 (provoking breach of peace). With this, the accused, Hari Nandan Singh, was discharged of all charges.

ALSO READ | Beed Sarpanch Murder: Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde Resigns as Close Aide Faces Accusations

The incident dates back to November 2020 in Bokaro, Jharkhand. After an FIR was lodged, a local magistrate framed charges, but Singh appealed for discharge. The Jharkhand High Court rejected his plea in 2024, pushing him to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court. Today’s verdict overturns that decision, marking a win for Singh after a four-year legal battle.

Legal experts say this ruling clarifies the line between offensive speech and criminal intent. While terms like ‘Miyan-Tiyan’—a colloquial reference to Muslims—and ‘Pakistani’ may offend, they don’t automatically violate Section 298 unless there’s clear intent to wound religious feelings. The judgment aligns with past cases where the court has protected free speech unless it crosses into incitement or violence.