Obscenity charges against M.F. Husain were organised harassment in the name of religious sentiments: Judge

Former Supreme Court Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul has made significant remarks regarding the legal cases against the world-renowned Indian painter Makbool Fida Husain (M.F. Husain). He stated that the manner in which cases were filed against Husain was, in reality, 'organised harassment' carried out under the pretext of religious sentiments. Judge Kaul clarified that it is not appropriate to suppress artistic expression in a democracy.

According to a report by Scroll, Judge Kaul stated that when this case came before him in 2008, it was extremely controversial and politically sensitive. The case had previously been adjourned 16 times, and his predecessor judges had also been hesitant to take up the matter. However, Judge Kaul accepted the challenge because he believed it was not right to withdraw from a case solely due to political controversy. He added that 90 per cent of judicial work is routine, but it is the unconventional cases that make the work challenging and interesting.

The case primarily concerned a painting featuring a highly stylised depiction of a woman who spiritually represented India. In this painting, the woman was shown semi-naked and in pain. Judge Kaul drew attention to an important fact: although the controversy became known worldwide as the "Bharat Mata" painting, Husain had never claimed this title. The title had been given by an enthusiastic collector. Nevertheless, an impression was created that Husain had deliberately chosen a provocative title, which was not the truth.

Judge Kaul further clarified that it is necessary to focus on the specific evidence and complaints before the court. He noted that critics cited other works of Husain, such as a painting of a nearly naked Sita sitting on Hanuman's tail, as examples and questioned how such things could be permitted. On this matter, Judge Kaul explicitly stated, "I am not hearing the case on that painting, and I am not here to give an opinion on every work created by the artist in his lifetime." He emphasised that the court decides on the case before it; it is not the judge's job to provide a certificate of character for the entire life and work of a party to the case.

Discussing the meaning of artistic freedom in a democracy, Judge Kaul said that while India claims to be the world's largest democracy, it is ready to stifle artistic expression at the first sign of artificial controversy. He stated that Husain had created these works decades ago and they had already been exhibited in galleries, but suddenly someone claims to be insulted and launches a campaign of cases across the country. In the judge's view, this is not a legal outrage, but organised harassment carried out under the mask of religious sentiments.

Speaking on free expression, he said, "Free speech is not always comfortable. It is often inconvenient, sometimes sad, and sometimes shocking." However, he warned that if this freedom does not exist, public figures will use the courts as a tool to silence their critics. He added that it is better to grant more freedom than to grant too little. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to suppress sad truths or, in most cases, sad lies about themselves. Judge Kaul concluded by saying that the only solution to this is for the individual to develop a thicker skin.