Takeaways from the Husain Controversy

 

Introduction

A legal development recently took place over the exhibition of two paintings depicting Hindu deities by Lt. Maqbool Fida (M.F.) Husain at the Delhi Art Gallery. In a judgment delivered on August 19, 2025, the Delhi Sessions Court upheld an earlier magistrate’s decision not to register a police FIR based on a complaint alleging religious offense. The Court ruled that further police investigation was unnecessary, because all relevant evidence, being CCTV footage, the artworks themselves, and photographic documentation, had already been preserved. The complainant, AOR Amita Sachdeva, retains the right to lead evidence in an ongoing judicial complaint case. Click here to read the full judgment.


Takeaways

For practicing creatives and creative institutions, the legal proceedings in Amita Sachdeva vs. State & Ors. offer important takeaways regarding complaints of such nature:


  1. Understanding the 'deliberate and malicious intent' requirement: The core legal standard for an offense under Section 299 (deliberate and malicious acts) of the BNS, 2023, in cases outraging religious feelings, is proof of deliberate and malicious 'intention'. The Court emphasized that merely being offensive or potentially capable of hurting sentiments is not enough. The intention behind the artwork and its display must be shown to be purposeful and malicious to insult or outrage religious feelings.

  2. Context is important:

    • Private space vs. public incitement: The fact that the exhibition was held in a private space for displaying original artworks was a significant factor noted by the Investigating Officer in concluding there was no cognizable offense and lacking the requisite malicious intent. The Court distinguished this case from those involving hate speech, which typically involves public incitement or violence, because the paintings were showcased in a private exhibition.
    • Audience engagement: Prior judgments, like Maqbool Fida Husain Vs. Rajkumar Pandey (AIR 1965 SC 881), indicate that when art is accessed (eg, on a website or in a gallery), individuals have the option to not view or close the content if they find it objectionable. This suggests that the nature of the audience and their agency in viewing the art can influence how outrage is perceived.

  3. Documentation and preservation of evidence:

    • The Court found that key evidence, such as photographs taken by the complainant, CCTV footage, Network Video Recorder (NVR) metadata, and the paintings themselves, had already been seized and preserved. This existing evidence was deemed sufficient for the case to proceed as a complaint case without requiring further police investigation at the initial stage.
    • For creative institutions, this underscores the importance of meticulously documenting artworks, exhibition setup, promotional materials, and visitor interactions as these can serve as direct evidence to clarify intent and context should legal issues arise.

  4. Artistic freedom and nudity:

    • In a related judgment concerning M.F. Husain's work (Maqbool Fida Husain Vs. Rajkumar Pandey), it was observed that a painting can be an expression of the artist's vision of a concept, and that anthropomorphic depictions of a nation might not constitute a deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.
    • Arguments were also made that nudity itself is not inherently vulgar or taboo in Indian artistic and historical contexts, citing examples like Khajuraho sculptures, Chola bronzes, and nude yogis, differentiating it from vulgarity.

  5. Understanding procedures (Complaint Case vs. an FIR):

    • The Court affirmed that Magistrates should not mechanically direct the registration of an FIR under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. Instead, if a complainant already possesses sufficient evidence, the Magistrate may direct the matter to proceed as a complaint case under Section 223 of the BNSS
    • This means that an immediate police investigation and FIR registration might not occur if the Court believes the available evidence is adequate for judicial scrutiny, and police assistance is not "essential" for collecting evidence beyond the complainant's reach.
    • Even if further inquiry is needed later, the Magistrate has the power to order a limited inquiry by a police officer or another person under Section 225 of the BNSS, which safeguards interests without necessitating full FIR registration.

  6. Avoid unsubstantiated allegations: The Petitioner's allegations of 'potential financial fraud or tampering' were dismissed as unsubstantiated and not warranting a probe. Artists should be aware that generalized or speculative accusations against them are unlikely to lead to immediate police investigation without concrete, direct evidence.


While artistic expression is protected, artists and institutions should be mindful of the deliberate and malicious intent standard, the specific context of their exhibitions, and the importance of clear documentation to demonstrate their intentions, particularly when their work touches upon sensitive cultural or religious themes. The legal system prioritizes a careful, judicial application of mind over automatic police intervention in such matters. Artists should be aware that while an immediate police investigation and FIR might not be automatically registered for art alleged to offend religious sentiments, complaints can still lead to formal legal proceedings as a complaint case.