Indian judiciary is well known for its Hinduphobia (Hindudvesh) but just when one thinks the judiciary cannot plumb any lower, one or the other court comes up with an order that forces us to rethink. Many judgements are not just Hinduphobic but downright outrageous and

K’taka quashes FIR against Muslims preaching Islam in Mandir

In July 2025, the Karnataka High Court (HC) quashed an FIR filed against three Muslim men who were accused of preaching Islam and distributing religious pamphlets near the Ramatheerth Mandir in Jamkhandi, Bagalkot district. The incident allegedly took place on 4 May 2025, around 4:30 pm. The men were accused of promoting Islamic teachings to temple visitors, making derogatory remarks against Hindu Dharma, and allegedly offering incentives such as vehicles and jobs in Dubai to encourage people to convert.

The FIR charged them under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including provisions related to promoting enmity, hurting religious sentiments, and attempting religious conversions. They were also booked under the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022.

When the case reached the Karnataka HC, Justice Venkatesh Naik T. ruled that the FIR did not establish any clear evidence of forced or fraudulent religious conversion. The judge noted that the law requires proof of coercion, misrepresentation, allurement, or undue influence for a case to proceed under the anti-conversion act, and these elements were missing.

Additionally, the court pointed out that the complainant had no legal standing to file the FIR. According to the law, only the person who has allegedly been converted, or their close relatives, can lodge such a complaint. Since the complainant was not directly affected, the court held that the case was procedurally invalid. The HC concluded that even if all the allegations were assumed to be true, no cognizable offence had been committed under the relevant laws. Therefore, it decided to quash the FIR and all related legal proceedings.

This verdict highlights the judiciary’s total lack of empathy when it comes to Hindu concerns. Furthermore, it has ignited debate on whether religious preaching should be allowed in or around spaces considered sacred by another faith, even in the absence of coercion or inducement. The court’s decision focused strictly on the legal requirements of the anti-conversion law and procedural fairness, without addressing the broader social or cultural sensitivities involved. It also creates fertile grounds for turning Mandir into preaching places for the conversion mafia. One can be certain that the same judge would not allow a Hindu to promote Hindu religious teachings in a mosque or church.

Judiciary’s love for Hinduphobes

It is a well-established fact that a section of the Indian judiciary is blatantly anti-Hindu and hence, the Karnataka HC’s order doesn’t seem out of place. It has often given a free pass to Hindu haters while turning a blind eye towards anti-Hindu hate speech.

1) For the judiciary only those ranting against Hindus have freedom of speech and expression. It has repeatedly let off Hinduphobics on the grounds that the person was ‘expressing’ his/her ‘opinion’ while the same judiciary demonized Nupur Sharma for merely countering Hindu hate and quoting from the Hadith to back her arguments. Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya was given relief by the judiciary despite slandering Ramcharitmanas, a Grantha revered by Hindus.

2) Another Hinduphobe who received largesse from the judiciary was ‘comedian’ Munawar Faruqui. ‘Comedian’ Munawar Faruqui, who mocked Hindu deities, was granted bail by the SC despite the high court mentioning that Faruqui could not be released.

3) In the same league is Hinduphobe POCSO-accused Islamist propagandist Mohammad Zubair who seems to be blue-eyed boy of certain senior judges with liberal leanings. He was not just given bail, but the judiciary also refused to bar him from tweeting. He had shared an edited clip of Nupur Sharma unleashing the Sar Tan Se Juda (STSJ) gang on her, forcing her to go incognito.

4) The judiciary sees hate speech as per its convenience and in compliance with its anti-Hindu bias. Therefore, the judiciary, which takes Suo moto cognizance in all cases except where Hindus are victims, chose to ignore Udhaynidhi Stalin’s calls to eradicate Sanatana Dharma. 

Other weird rulings by the Indian judiciary

Judiciary’s obsession with pardoning Hinduphobes is one thing but. From the lower courts to the apex court, Indian judiciary has delivered several weird and openly Hinduphobic judgements. Here are some gems of the judiciary:

1) “A cow is a cow. True love for God lies in serving fellow creatures and not in getting into these issues. There are much more important issues present in society,” a SC bench ruled while hearing a petition that asked Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), which manages the famous Tirupati Balaji Temple, to use only indigenous cow milk for worship and bhog prasad offered to Bhagwan Venkatesh. This is what happens when the judiciary has zero knowledge of Dharmic Mandir rituals. There is a difference between foreign breeds like Jersey cows and Desi breeds.

2) However not much can be expected from whose priority is deciding how Odomos should be classified and whether mosquitoes merely get confused due to the application of Odomos or are repelled and killed by it.

3) The Supreme Court bench led by none other than then CJI (Chief Justice of India) AS Bobde admitted a petition regarding tree felling and even questioned the need for straight roads.  

4) Judiciary and State repeatedly interfere in Samaj’s Dharmic practices, from deciding the height of the handi during Krishna Janmashtami to that of Ganesh murtis during Ganeshotsav. In 2017, the Supreme Court (SC) specified the exact type of water that devotees could use to pour on the Jyotirlinga at the Ujjain Mahakaleshwar Mandir.

5) During Diwali, the court leaves aside all pending cases and focuses its attention on banning firecrackers.

6) Worse is Allahabad (Prayagraj) HC’s 2021 ruling when it found oral sex with child ‘less serious.’ “It is clear that offence committed by appellant neither falls under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act nor under Section 9(M) of POCSO Act because there is penetrative sexual assault in the present case as the appellant has put his penis into mouth of victim. Putting penis into mouth does not fall in the category of aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault. It comes into category of penetrative sexual assault which is punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act,”

These are only some instances of judiciary’s weird rulings. This makes it all the more important that judicial rulings aren’t taken as precedent in law as is the case today. Moreover, the judiciary cannot turn a blind eye citing weird laws or use loopholes to pass judgments like Justice Naik did in the case of Islamic proselytization inside a Mandir. A boundary needs to be drawn and the judiciary needs to gets off the moral high horse and get rid of its God complex.