IMPERATIVE ANALYSIS: BLASPHEMY LAWS IN INDIA

 

IMPERATIVE ANALYSIS:

BLASPHEMY LAWS IN INDIA

 

WRITTEN  BY: KITTU SHARMA

3-YEAR, LL.B, GOVERNMENT LAW P.G. COLLEGE,

BIKANER, RAJASTHAN

 

EDITED BY: JAIN DIVYA LALIT

4TH YEAR B.L.S. LL.B., MGM LAW COLLEGE,

NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

 

INTRODUCTION:

 The term "blasphemy law" refers to legislation prohibiting contempt or insults directed at deities, religious organizations' sacred objects, practices, or beliefs. The Indian Penal Code was amended to include Section 295A  in the year 1927. Its primary goal is to uphold "Public order in a multi-religious and religiously sensitive society." Hate speech that disparages or attempts to disparage any class of citizens' religion or religious beliefs is prohibited. New regulations were published in 2011 by the Indian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, mandating social media network operators to screen and remove offensive content within 36 hours of receiving a complaint. Blasphemy regulations typically impose limitations on the free exchange of ideas or thinking. The basic claim is that a state is a place of hazardous and illiberal nonsense and that it must utilize coercive power in obedience to religious feelings. Therefore, these regulations violate the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Human rights organizations and civil society organizations have been pushing for the abolition or revision of India's blasphemy laws during the past few years. The United Nations has also urged India to reconsider its legislation in light of international human rights norms due to concerns over the impact of blasphemy laws on the freedom of expression and religion.

The 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution introduced the word "secular," making it very obvious that India is a secular nation. Because all religions are equal in the eyes of the state or because the state does not have its own religion, the state will not interfere with the people's religious affairs. Section 295-A is constitutionally valid in India. The editor of a cow protection magazine was charged under Statute 295A in Ramjilal Modi v. State of U.P.[1] and he appealed the case to the Supreme Court of India while disputing the validity of the section as a whole.

ORIGIN: CONCEPT OF BLASPHEMY

Blasphemy is a term that dates back to 325 AD and comes from a Greek phrase that means to talk evil. As the idea of monotheism emerged, it evolved as a mistake. Jews provided the idea of blasphemy in a rather firm form in the 12th or 13th centuries. According to the Indian penal code of 1860, blasphemy is illegal in India. Since India is a secular state, all religions, including various branches of the same religion, are protected by blasphemy laws, as opposed to countries like Pakistan and Iran where only one religion is protected. The Fundamental Duties that every Indian Citizen is required to uphold were outlined in the 42nd Amendment. The word "secular" was added to the Constitution's preamble, making it very apparent that India is a secular nation that is not prejudiced towards any one faith.

 

PROVISIONS RELATED TO RELIGION/ BLASPHEMY LAWS OF INDIA

IPC Chapter XV[2] "offenses related to religion," was established in the Indian penal code in THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1927[3]  Insertion of new section 295A in Act XLV of 1860. to safeguard one person's rights against another. These laws specifically prohibit blasphemy in India. The sections below are covered in this chapter:

●          Section 295 “If any person intentionally damages, destroys, or defiles any religious object deemed to be sacred by followers of any religion in India, including objects other than idols and books is punishable under this section. He shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years or fine, or both.” 

●          Section 295A: “if a person maliciously by words spoken or written or signs or by visible representation insults or attempts to insult the religious sentiments of any class of citizens of India then he may be punished under this section. A person can be imprisoned for 3 years or fined, or both if charged under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.”

●          Section 296: “if a person intentionally causes disturbance to any lawful religious assembly and ceremonies thereof he shall be punishable under this section and he can be imprisoned for one year or fined or both.”

●          Section 297: “if a person intentionally trespasses any burial place knowing that this act of his may hurt the religious sentiments of any class of citizens is punishable under this section. This provision is said to protect the religious rights of even dead persons. Punishment under this section is imprisonment for up to one year or a fine or both.”  

●          Section 154 of the Indian Penal Code forbids inciting hate in the name of a particular religion, although it does not defend any particular religion; rather, it defends a person's right to practice their religion.

 WHY NOT ANTI-BLASPHEMY LAWS

For various reasons, many nations have repealed or significantly reduced the blasphemy punishment. The word "religion" is not defined. Blasphemy has been defined as disrespect for God or religion, however, there is no precise meaning of the word "religion" in and of itself. Because some faiths, like Hinduism, are debatable, believing in God or Gods is clearly insufficient as a definition. Similarly, a polytheistic definition that depends on belief in God or Gods would fail to include Buddhism because it excludes belief in God. Religious freedom: Through commentary or judgments, many jurisdictions have endeavored to define the term "religion." The Indian Constitution also guarantees religious freedom, including the right to freely proclaim, practice, and spread one's religion. In order to enlarge the definition of religion, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 18 also provides protection for atheistic and non-theistic viewpoints. Right to free speech and expression[4]  in the constitutions of many nations, including India, freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right. It is also a human right. Freedom of speech and expression has been enshrined in numerous international agreements as a right that cannot be curtailed because it contains blasphemous language.   A tool for oppression: Blasphemy has long been considered a tactic used by the majority to oppress the minority. encourages violence: Instances of interreligious violence have been justified and started by vigilante groups and non-state actors using the charge of repeated blasphemy events. The obstacle to the emergence of scientific temperament: There have been numerous instances where rationalists have been threatened for challenging religious concepts and have faced legal action under blasphemy laws.

ARE PEOPLE LOSING THEIR HUMANITY IN THE SEARCH FOR GOD?

The Centre saw the beheading of a Hindu tailor in Udaipur for posting on social media in favor of Nupur Sharma[5] after she made "blasphemous" statements about Prophet Muhammad as an act of terrorism that put the entire country on fire. Blasphemy laws are frequently applied to punish persons for actions or ideas that differ from those of the majority in religious and sensitive matters. Approximately 25% of the nations in the world now have blasphemy offenses with specific penalties. Only two of the 71 nations Iran and Pakistan have adopted the death penalty as the appropriate punishment for a crime.

 

HOW DOES INDIA RELATE TO THE LAWS AGAINST BLASPHEMY?

Blasphemy is occasionally misinterpreted as an attack on religion. In actuality, it is said to stifle this critique of religion. Just to let you know, there is a distinction between blasphemy and criticism.

While blasphemy is the defamation of religion in word or deed, criticism falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech or expression since it allows people to criticize a religion based on logic, reason, and rationality without using derogatory language.

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS RELATED TO BLASPHEMY

In Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar[6] the courts applied the same interpretation to Section 295 A. According to the case's circumstances, a magazine published an image of cricket player Mahendra Singh Dhoni dressed as Lord Vishnu with the caption Divine power of Big Deals. The prosecution claimed that the image was offensive to Lord Vishnu worshippers' religious beliefs. The courts determined that Section 295A2 only criminalizes words or deeds done with the aim to intentionally injure the religious sensibilities of that class, not any act that offends religious sentiments. Additionally, there have been numerous constitutional defenses of blasphemy laws, including Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh  The five-judge panel, in this case, upheld the legality of section 295A2. The editor of Gauraksha magazine was the defendant, Mr. Ramji Lal. He was charged with writing a profane article and having it published. According to Mr. Ramji Lal, his right to free expression is properly protected by article 19 1 (a)[6] of the constitution, and as a result, his content is likewise protected by the same provision. The court determined that the clause exclusively penalizes specific maliciously motivated actions that damage a specific class's religious sensibilities. This insult must have the deliberate tendency to disturb public order. Regarding the validity of section 295A2, the criminality of these actions is fully protected by paragraph (2) of article 19, which permits the imposition of justifiable limitations on the freedom of speech and expression. However, there are other constitutional defenses to anti-blasphemy laws.

In the relatively recent case of Shreya Singhal v. U.O. I., the court clarified the distinction between advocacy and incitement and stressed the need for anti-speech legislation to be carefully crafted so that only instances of the latter type of statements can be criminalized. The recent FIR against the cast, crew, and director of the Amazon Prime web series Tandav as well as the case of comedian Munawar Faruqui, who is accused of allegedly hurting religious emotion, is evidence of the rise in religiously sensitive topics.

CONCLUSION

When it comes to implementing specific legislation Both the use and misuse of the blasphemy law in India will increase as the country's specific legislation is put into place. The blasphemy law in India is already contained under Section 295A of the IPC. The aforementioned law is being used in numerous cases, including those involving Mahua Moitra and Nupur Sharma, who were both accused of making 'Kali' statements. Blasphemy laws limit a person's freedom of speech and expression, but determining if their goal is justifiable is the main concern here. It would be hypocritical to take a side in this debate. At the global level, this issue needs to be resolved. Anti-blasphemy laws are often terrible by nature. If a law forbids someone from practicing their religion because other organizations find it offensive to their religion, it may also be construed as disrespectful of other organizations' religious beliefs. Blasphemy laws ought to be abolished worldwide as a result.

---

[1] Ramji Lal Modi vs The State Of U.P,  1957 AIR 620, 1957 SCR 860

[2] THE INDIAN PENAL CODE. ACT NO. 45 OF 1860, CHAPTER-XV [offenses related to religion]

[3] THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1927 –  Insertion of new section 295A in Act XLV of 1860

[4] Freedom of expression is a fundamental Human Right, enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and mentioned in The Constitution of India 1949, Article 19(1)(a).

[5] NUPUR SHARMA CASE: https://www.livelaw.in/tags/nupur-sharma https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/nupur-sharma-prophet-remark-row-all-cases-to-be-transferred-to-delhi-1986306-2022-08-10

[6] Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 450, decided on 20.04.2017