Legal sanction to desecration of temples? Karnataka HC quashes FIR against Muslims preaching Islam in Hindu temple because it ‘doesn’t amount to conversion’ — Why it’s wrong
In a controversial judgment, the Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR filed against three Muslim men accused of distributing Islamic pamphlets and verbally propagating Islamic teachings inside the Ramatheerth Temple in Jamkhandi. The court found no legal offence had been committed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, or the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act (KPRFR), 2022.
The complainant alleged that on May 4, 2025, at around 4:30 p.m., a group of men were seen distributing literature on Islamic teachings within the temple premises and explaining their beliefs to visiting devotees. The situation reportedly escalated when some temple-goers approached the individuals for clarification. According to the complaint, the men responded with derogatory remarks against Hinduism, and allegedly offered incentives, including promises of vehicles and job opportunities in Dubai, which the complainant believed were attempts at religious conversion.
Based on these allegations, the local police registered charges under Sections 299, 351(2), and 3(5) of the BNS, along with Section 5 of the KPRFR Act. However, the accused filed a petition seeking to quash the FIR, claiming they were merely engaging in religious discourse and not attempting to forcibly convert anyone.
However, the High Court observed that no offence had been committed under these provisions, as the FIR did not establish any direct attempt to convert individuals from one religion to another, a requirement under Section 3 of the KPRFR Act.
The bench pointed out a crucial legal technicality: that Section 4 of the KPRFR Act limits the right to lodge complaints to the person who has been converted (or their close relatives), and not third parties or concerned devotees. Since the complainant in this case was a third party, the court held that he lacked locus standi. It further stated that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value, they failed to demonstrate coercion, misrepresentation, or inducement for conversion, the necessary conditions to constitute an offence under the Act.
While the court may have strictly adhered to the letter of the law, this judgment leaves behind a host of troubling questions. Is the judiciary now turning a blind eye to potential desecration of Hindu temples under the guise of religious preaching? Will the courts allow brazen violation of temple sanctity based on a mere legal technicality? If preaching Islam inside a Hindu temple, a sacred, consecrated space, is not deemed offensive or inflammatory, then where is the line drawn?
Desecration disguised as preaching?
Beyond legal interpretations, the incident cuts deep into the heart of a larger issue: the sanctity of places of worship. A temple is far more than just a structure, it is a living embodiment of a faith’s beliefs, customs, and spiritual ethos. It serves as a sacred space where followers seek connection with the divine in an environment aligned with their own religious tenets. Attempting to propagate another religion within such a space is not merely inappropriate, it is a brazen act of violating sacred beliefs propagated by that faith, spiritual intrusion, and desecration.
To engage in conversion activity, subtle or overt, inside a temple is an unabashed violation of the very essence of that place. It mocks the sanctity of the rituals, the scriptures, and the deity revered within. Just as one would not tolerate chanting Hindu mantras in a mosque or delivering Bible sermons inside a dargah, the act of preaching Islam inside a Hindu temple undermines the foundational respect for religious boundaries. In any multicultural society, the mutual sanctity of each religion’s sacred spaces must be non-negotiable.
Who will be responsible if violence erupts?
In a country where religious fault lines run deep, such incidents can easily trigger a dangerous wave of violence and rioting. And if such unrest unfolds in the future, will the judiciary bear the responsibility of having declared such provocative acts legally permissible?
Temples are not public squares. They are sacrosanct places of worship, deeply tied to the faith, traditions, and emotions of the Hindu community. Any attempt by outsiders to promote another religion within such a sacred space is bound to provoke outrage, and in volatile environments, may even trigger communal flashpoints.
Moreover, there is a fundamental contradiction at play. Hindu religious events, gatherings, and institutions frequently come under attack for “hurting sentiments” for merely affirming their beliefs, while active promotion of Islam within a Hindu temple is deemed harmless unless someone is forcibly converted. This asymmetry is not only harmful, it is extremely dangerous—with the potential of turning Hindu temples into next battlefront for communal confrontations.
News