New Delhi [India], July 18 : Delhi's Patiala House Court on Friday reserved its order after hearing arguments on a revision petition seeking an FIR against an Art Gallery for displaying alleged objectionable paintings made by MF Husain.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurav Pratap Singh Laller reserved an order after hearing the arguments for the revisionist and the respondent.
The court has reserved judgment for August 4.
During the hearing, counsel for respondents filed a judgment of the Delhi High Court in favour of M F Husain.
The revisionist submitted that the judgment referred to by the counsel for respondents is related to the painting of Bharat Mata. This present matter is related to obscene paintings of Hindu gods and goddesses. The judgment referred to is not applicable in this case.
The court has asked the revisionist to file written submissions in support of her case.
This revision has been filed against a magistrate court order wherein the direction for registration of an FIR was denied.
Advocate Amita Sachdeva is the complainant in this matter.
During earlier arguments, advocate Makarand D Adkar, counsel for the Complainant, argued that in the objectionable paintings, our god has been shown holding a nude woman. Our god has been insulted.
On the other hand, it was argued by the counsel for Delhi Art Gallery (DAG) submitted that the exhibition was there for 30 days, nobody raised an objection except the complainant. Her concern can't be treated as a concern of society.
The complainant, Amita Sachdeva, had moved the Sessions Court against the magistrate's order refusing registration of an FIR.
On January 23, the Patiala House Court had declined to order the registration of an FIR in response to a petition claiming that two paintings by the late artist and Padma awardee M.F. Husain offended religious sentiments.
The Magistrate court had stated that no further investigation was necessary in the matter.
The Magistrate court, in its ruling, had noted that the complainant was already aware of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Additionally, the CCTV footage from the Delhi Art Gallery and the disputed paintings had already been seized.
It had further stated that, in its considered view, no additional investigation or evidence gathering was needed at this stage, as all pertinent evidence was already in the complainant's possession and on record.
The court had further added that in the present case, all the facts and circumstances of the case are within the knowledge of the complainant. CCTV footage of Delhi Art Gallery, NVR and the paintings in question have already been seized.
In the considered opinion of this court, no further investigation and collection of evidence is required on the part of the investigating agency at this stage, as all the evidence is in the possession of the complainant as well as on record, and if the same is required at a later stage, then Section 225 BNSS can be resorted to. In the present facts and circumstances, the application under section 175(3) of CrPC stands dismissed, as the court had ordered on January 23.
The complaint stated that artwork, which depicted Hindu Deities Hanuman and Ganesha holding nude female figures, sparked outrage after a formal complaint was filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, who deemed the paintings "offensive."
The controversy began when Complainant Amita Sachdeva, practising Advocate, visited the DAG in Connaught Place on December 4, 2024, and took photographs of the disputed pieces.
Following this, she had filed a complaint with the Parliament Street Police Station on December 9, 2024, after researching past FIRs lodged against Husain for similar works. However, during a subsequent visit on December 10, 2024, with the investigating officer, the paintings were mysteriously removed, and gallery officials claimed that they had never been on display.
In response to Sachdeva's petition, Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Sahil Monga reviewed the Action Taken Report (ATR) from the police, which included CCTV footage and a list of artworks provided by the gallery.
The court had noted that the report confirmed that the disputed paintings were listed under Serial Nos. 6 and 10 in the gallery's inventory.