A local court’s recent sentencing in the 2024 communal violence case has triggered controversy after the judge cited a verse from the Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu text, prompting questions about the role of religious or historical sources in modern constitutional jurisprudence.
On December 9, Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Kumar Sharma sentenced 10 people in the 2024 killing of Ram Gopal Mishra, which occurred during a procession linked to a Durga idol immersion in Maharajganj town. The court awarded the death penalty to the first accused and life imprisonment to nine others, according to The Indian Express.
The 22-year-old Hindu youth was shot dead moments after he was seen on the rooftop of a Muslim house, vandalising the property and removing the green flag to wave the saffron one in front of a cheering mob. He was part of a Durga idol immersion procession that played loud Islamophobic songs in front of a mosque on the main street.
The fatal escalation led to mob violence against Muslim properties that evening and the next day, despite police presence. Several Muslims were beaten and detained in midnight raids by police, searching for the accused in the murder.
In a 142-page order, the court described the crime as “extremely heinous” and, while underscoring the need for firm punishment to maintain social order, quoted a verse from the Manusmriti on the deterrent role of sanctions, the newspaper reported.
Social media outcry
The reference to an ancient Hindu text in a contemporary criminal judgment quickly drew attention online, particularly among users who emphasised India’s identity as a constitutional democracy governed by secular law.
On X, formerly Twitter, several users raised concerns about the broader constitutional implications. An account, @Muslim_ITCell, said the citation reflected a troubling trend in judicial reasoning. Another user, @VoxShadabKhan, also highlighted the reference, sharing excerpts from the order and questioning its compatibility with secular constitutional values.
On Reddit, criticism was sharper. A thread on r/unitedstatesofindia described what commenters called a “Manuvaadi mindset” entering the judiciary, arguing that invoking the Manusmriti undermines the primacy of the Constitution and could weaken confidence in secular legal principles.
The news website OpIndia countered that the quotation was illustrative, used to explain the philosophy of punishment, and did not replace statutory law or constitutional norms.
Legal debate intensifies
Legal scholars and civil rights advocates say the episode has opened a wider debate about judicial language and the separation of religion and law in India.
Critics argue that referencing the Manusmriti, a text historically associated with caste hierarchies and discriminatory prescriptions, sends an inappropriate signal in a secular, pluralistic democracy where the Constitution is supreme.
Supporters caution against overstating the issue, noting that courts have previously cited historical or philosophical works without granting them legal force, so long as verdicts rest on statutory and constitutional provisions.
As appeals are expected, legal analyses are likely to follow. The Bahraich case, already notable for its severity of punishment, may now have a prolonged life in public debate and possibly in higher courts if constitutional questions about judicial reasoning and secularism are formally raised.
The post Bahraich violence: UP court hands down death sentence, life terms in murder case; Manusmriti citation draws scrutiny appeared first on Maktoob media.
