Judge refers to Manusmriti while awarding death sentence to Muslim man in communal riot case
text_fields
A judgement giving the death sentence, while quoting verses from the Hindu scripture Manusmriti to a Muslim man accused of killing a Hindu youth who was found to have been removing a green flag from the rooftop of a Muslim house and vandalising the property, leading to a communal riot during a Durga idol immersion procession in 2024, has raised questions about perceived right-wing intrusion into a judiciary that is constitutionally mandated to function under secular laws in the country.
The controversy followed a December 9 order by Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Kumar Sharma, who sentenced 10 people in connection with the killing of Ram Gopal Mishra in Maharajganj town, awarding the death penalty to the first accused while sentencing nine others to life imprisonment, according to The Indian Express.
The incident occurred during a Durga idol immersion procession, as a video of the 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra, showing him climbing onto the rooftop of a Muslim residence, vandalising the property and replacing a green flag with a saffron one while Islamophobic songs were played near a mosque, before he was shot dead, went viral on social media.
The killing triggered widespread violence against Muslim-owned properties that evening and into the next day, even as police were deployed in the area, with several Muslims reportedly beaten and detained during overnight raids conducted as part of the investigation.
In its 142-page judgement, the court described the crime as exceptionally grave and emphasised the need for stringent punishment to preserve social order, while also referring to a verse from the Manusmriti to explain the deterrent philosophy underlying criminal sanctions.
The reference rapidly became the focus of online debate, with social media users questioning the appropriateness of invoking a religious text in a modern criminal verdict, according to Maktoob media.
Criticism was particularly strong on platforms such as X and Reddit, where users argued that citing a text historically associated with caste hierarchy and exclusion undermined the secular foundations of Indian constitutional law.
Some commentators warned that such references could weaken public confidence in judicial neutrality, while framing the issue as part of a broader ideological shift within state institutions.
Right-leaning platforms, however, defended the judgment by arguing that the reference was merely illustrative and did not substitute statutory or constitutional reasoning. Legal scholars noted that while courts have occasionally cited historical or philosophical works, the core issue lay in whether such references were compatible with the Constitution’s supremacy.