Delhi court refuses to order FIR against Delhi Art Gallery over display of MF Husain paintings

A Sessions Court recently declined to order police investigation into a complaint against Delhi Art Gallery over display of two paintings by famous artist late MF Husain..Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler upheld the Magistrate's January 22 decision to hear the plea filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva as a complaint case.Sachdeva moved the Court claiming that the paintings hurt the sentiments of Hindus.The Court noted that Sachdeva's complaint revolved around the display of allegedly offensive paintings at a private exhibition and key evidence including the paintings have already been seized."The Petitioner possesses direct evidence (her photographs and observations) and can summon witnesses (e.g., gallery staff or experts) to prove ingredients under Section 299 BNS, such as deliberate malice or outrage to religious feelings. Allegations of fraud or tampering are unsubstantiated and appear speculative, not warranting preemptive police probe," the Court ruled on August 19..Sachdeva had seen the paintings while on a visit to the gallery on December 4, 2024. She deemed them to be offensive and then lodged a complaint with the police.When she visited the gallery with the investigation officer on December 10, the paintings had allegedly been removed. She then approached the Magistrate court seeking directions for FIR against the art gallery and preservation of evidence.An action taken report by the police said that the paintings in question were displayed as part of an exhibition held in a private space. The paintings were only to display the original work of the artists, it added.Following a court order, the paintings were seized. However, the Police said commission of cognizable offence could not be ascertained and did not register an FIR. The Magistrate declined to order an FIR.Sachdeva then filed the present revision plea before the Sessions Court against the Magistrate's refusal to order FIR on her complaint..The Sessions Court observed that Section 299 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) requires proof of deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings through insulting means and the investigation sought by Sachdeva was not essential to establish these ingredients at this stage."The investigation sought by the Petitioner in this regard—such as forensic examination of the paintings to verify authenticity, detailed inquiry into the subjective intent of the Respondents, or forensic analysis of dissemination methods—is not essential to establish these ingredients at the pre-cognizance stage. The seized paintings and exhibition records, along with CCTV footage, serve as direct evidence of the "visible representations" under ingredient (c), demonstrating the mode of alleged dissemination without requiring specialized forensics, as the artworks' existence and display are already preserved on record," it said.The Court added that the potential "insult or attempt to insult" under the provision can be assessed through her own photographs, eyewitness observations, and the inherent content of the paintings, which are tangible and accessible for judicial scrutiny."For ingredient (b), the alleged outrage to religious feelings of a particular class can be established via the Petitioner's testimony, supported by affidavits or expert opinions on cultural sensitivities, procurable without police intervention," the Court added.With regard to the deliberate and malicious intent, the Court said it must be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the context of the exhibition. .The Court said that the Magistrate can order police inquiry even at a later stage."The Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Magistrate, wherein the Ld. Magistrate has passed a reasoned order, while observing that the paintings as well as CCTV footage have already been seized and as such, no further investigation and collection of evidence is required on the part of the investigation agency at this stage, as the evidence is in the possession of complainant as well as on record. It may be noted that the Ld. Magistrate has also clarified in para-7 of the order that if so required, Section 225 BNSS (section 202 Cr.P.C.) can be resorted to at a later stage," it said..Senior Advocate Markand Adkar represented complainant Amita Sachdeva, who appeared in person.Additional Public Prosecutor Mukul Kumar represented the State.Senior Advocate Madhav Khurana and advocate Piyush Swami represented Delhi Art Gallery..[Read Judgment]