High Court Grants Relief After Allahabad Police File Fir

Aligarh Muslim University Professor Gets Anticipatory Bail in Hindu Mythology Remarks Case

High Court Grants Relief After Allahabad Police File FIR

Background:

* Professor Shafey Kidwai of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was booked under IPC Sections 295A (hurting religious sentiments) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Hindu mythology in a social media post. * An FIR was registered against him at the Kotwali police station in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, following a complaint by a local Hindu organization.

Anticipatory Bail Granted:

* Professor Kidwai filed an anticipatory bail application in the Allahabad High Court, citing that he had no intention of hurting religious sentiments and that his remarks were taken out of context. * The court granted him anticipatory bail, observing that the professor's intention was not malicious and that the allegations against him were prima facie not substantiated by the material on record.

Key Points:

* Professor Kidwai's remarks allegedly compared Hindu mythology to mythology from other religions. * The Hindu organization alleged that his comments hurt religious sentiments and promoted enmity between different groups. * The professor maintained that his remarks were academic in nature and not intended to cause offense. * The court's decision to grant anticipatory bail suggests that it did not find sufficient grounds to support the allegations against Professor Kidwai.

Legal Implications:

* The case highlights the importance of freedom of speech and expression in academic discourse. * It also underscores the need for responsible and sensitive communication, particularly when discussing religious matters. * The prosecution will have to present strong evidence to support its allegations against Professor Kidwai in the subsequent trial.

Conclusion:

The Allahabad High Court's decision to grant anticipatory bail to Professor Kidwai has sparked a debate on the limits of academic freedom and the protection of religious sentiments. The case is a reminder of the delicate balance that must be struck between these fundamental rights in a diverse and pluralistic society.