Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses to Entertain PIL Against Anjana Om Kashyap Over Valmiki Remarks, Calls It Mythology Not History

Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an apology from news channel Aaj Tak and its senior anchor Anjana Om Kashyap for allegedly hurting the religious sentiments of the Valmiki community by referring to Sage Valmiki as a former dacoit during a broadcast.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry questioned the very basis of the petition, emphasizing that narratives surrounding Valmiki are rooted in mythology rather than documented history.

The petition was filed after a broadcast last year stated that Sage Valmiki was once a dacoit before his spiritual transformation. The petitioner sought an apology and the removal of the broadcast videos from the internet, contending that such references hurt religious sentiments.

Addressing the core issue, Chief Justice Nagu remarked, “It is part of mythology. You will not find any trace of it [in history]. What is this petition about? What is the ground for hurting [sentiments]?”

The Court cautioned the petitioner against pursuing the case, observing, “Are you serious about this petition? You are driving yourself to costs. You are basing your petition on a figment of imagination.”

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the videos should be removed as there is no historical evidence to support the claim that Valmiki was a dacoit. The Court then questioned whether the narrative was historical or mythological.

When the counsel admitted that it was mythology, the Bench noted that historical proof cannot be demanded for mythological narratives. The Court emphasized the clear distinction between mythology and history, pointing out that mythological stories do not require the same evidentiary standards as historical facts.

The petitioner’s counsel suggested that the media should describe Valmiki’s transformation as a “traditional belief” rather than state it as a fact. However, the Bench observed that the story of Valmiki’s transformation is a widely known and studied narrative.

The Court further remarked, “From the devil, he became a good man. That is what all of us have heard. That is something good on his part—that he changed for the better. Why are you so disturbed?” The Bench added that the community should take pride in the transformation, assuming the figure existed.

The Court’s observations highlighted that the narrative of Valmiki’s transformation from a dacoit to a sage is traditionally viewed as an inspirational story of redemption and spiritual evolution, questioning why such a narrative should be considered offensive rather than celebrated.

Following these adverse observations, counsel for the petitioner chose to withdraw the plea. While the Court was initially inclined to impose costs of ₹10,000 for filing what it considered a frivolous petition, it ultimately refrained from doing so upon a specific request made after the withdrawal.