The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a first-year law student challenging the inclusion of a question on the Ayodhya dispute in a university examination, ruling that academic critique of legal judgments does not amount to a religious offence unless driven by malicious intent.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that questioning or critically analyzing judicial decisions—even those involving sensitive issues—is an essential part of legal education and does not violate Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of deliberate provocation.

"Challenging a portion of a question paper solely on the ground that it hurts religious sentiments is not legally tenable unless it is shown that the inclusion was with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings," the Court stated.

The petitioner, Anuj Kumar Kumawat, a student at Mahavir Law College, had objected to a passage in the August 12, 2024, Legal Language, Legal Writing and General English examination conducted by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University. He alleged that the passage made biased remarks about the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya judgment, thereby hurting religious sentiments and infringing Article 25 of the Constitution and Section 295A IPC.

Kumawat sought removal of the content, disciplinary action against the examiner, and a public apology from the University.

The Court, however, found no substance in the allegations and emphasized the importance of academic independence. “Academic freedom and the autonomy of educational institutions should not be curtailed simply because some content is alleged to have hurt sentiments, unless the language used is clearly contemptuous, offensive, or defamatory,” it ruled.

Justice Dhand also noted that no other student had raised objections to the exam content, and that academic discussion of legal verdicts should be encouraged as part of constructive legal reasoning.

The Court concluded by reiterating that the law must be guided by reason and not emotion, and dismissed the petition as misconceived, along with all pending applications