The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered against Inamur Rahman, the former principal of Government New Law College in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, who faced allegations related to a purportedly “Hinduphobic” and “anti-national” book found in the college library.
The decision was rendered by a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
The FIR was originally filed following a controversy over a book titled Collective Violence and Criminal Justice System, authored by Farhat Khan, which was available in the college library.
The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), had raised objections to the book, claiming it contained derogatory content about Hindus and Hindutva organizations, including the RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and Bajrang Dal. They further alleged that the book described Hindu communalism as a destructive ideology, sparking widespread uproar.
In December 2022, amid the escalating controversy, Rahman resigned from his position as principal. Thereafter, the Madhya Pradesh Police lodged an FIR against him and three others, accusing them of promoting enmity and hurting religious sentiments.
Rahman sought to quash the FIR, and while the Madhya Pradesh High Court initially denied his request for interim relief, it did grant him anticipatory bail. The former principal then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's refusal to stay the police investigation pending a decision on his plea to quash the FIR.
During the Supreme Court hearing, the bench questioned the necessity of the state government’s aggressive stance, including the filing of a caveat to ensure it was heard before any order was issued. The Justices observed that the case appeared to be one of persecution, suggesting that certain parties were interested in troubling Rahman.
They criticized the High Court for not exercising its jurisdiction appropriately under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is designed to prevent the abuse of the legal process and miscarriage of justice.
The Supreme Court underscored that the FIR lacked substantive evidence to support the allegations, labelling it as an “absurdity.” The bench emphasized that the charges, even if taken at face value, did not constitute any criminal offence.
Highlighting the importance of judicial intervention to prevent injustice, the Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers it to issue orders necessary for delivering complete justice.