ABSTRACT:
Blasphemy is defined as denigrating or making fun of God, other deities, or sacred objects, as well as making fun of other people’s religions in the process. This research will analyze the blasphemy laws in India and in other western countries that what is their stance at blasphemy laws. The paper also consists of the reasons that why states adopted blasphemy laws. It also shows some of the legal provisions in India that prohibit blasphemy like 295, 295A, 296, 297 and 153A of IPC. Many nations have blasphemy-related criminal penalties in their legal systems. Even secular nations like Canada or Germany and Islamic nations like Iraq have criminal laws against blasphemy. Blasphemy is a felony with a variety of penalties, including the death penalty in Pakistan and a modest fine in Italy. Yet, many countries’ penal codes do not consider blasphemy to be a crime.
KEYWORDS:
Blasphemy, Religion, Indian Penal Code (IPC), Freedom of speech and expression, Punishment.
INTRODUCTION:
The term “Blasphemy” described as an insult that expresses hatred, disgust, or a lack of regard for a god, a sacred object, or something that is deemed inviolable[i]. To put it simply, it is the act of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred objects. Due to its propensity to cause harmonies to shatter, it has been declared to be defying custom-based law. It is made clear that it deserves some of the regulations. Yet, the justification for declaring blasphemy unlawful is valid anywhere in the globe, not just in countries with customary law.
The number of blasphemy legislation is astoundingly high. These statutes are upheld by 71 nations, dispersed over several areas. All around the world, there are laws against blasphemy, whether they are in Christian states like Greece or Iceland, Islamic governments like Iraq or Egypt, Jewish majority Israel, Buddhist-focused Sri Lanka, or secular states like Canada or Germany.
The word “blasphemy” is derived from a Greek verb that means to speak evil. It also has roots in Judeo-Christian culture, where acts of verbal abuse or offences against revered principles and sentiments are collectively referred to as blasphemy. Dharmic religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, have no concept of blasphemy[ii].
Various religions has their own degree of understanding related to the blasphemy, Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is seen as an unpardonable sin in christianity, whereas blasphemy against God is considered a fatal sin. Only heresy, according to Christian theologians, is considered to be a sin more serious than blasphemy[iii].
In Islam, Blasphemy is an impious statement or deed about God, however it is defined more broadly than in typical English usage, embracing not just the denigration of Islamic characteristics but also any of the core doctrines of the faith. The Quran curses those who commit blasphemy and promises blasphemers humiliation in the Hereafter[iv].
In Judaism, blasphemy is defined as “the cursing of God’s name,” or “birkat hashem” in Hebrew. A significant violation that goes beyond the basic blasphemy law of the Torah is to slander the Torah, Moses, the other prophets, or the Jewish scholars. The blasphemer of the Holy Name received the death penalty from Jewish courts, whereas the blasphemer of God’s attributes received physical punishment[v].
WHY STATES ADOPTED BLASPHEMY LAWS:
Blasphemy laws are frequently used to punish persons for having opinions and engaging in actions that differ from the majority on religious and sensitive matters as well as to stifle religious criticism. Blasphemy laws are sometimes used to enforce the majority’s religious convictions, while in other nations they are justified as ostensibly providing protection for minorities’ religious beliefs. In places where blasphemy is prohibited, there may be laws that either directly punish religious blasphemy or let individuals who are aggrieved by blasphemy to punish the perpetrators. Under the guises of blasphemous libel, statement of opposition to or “vilification” of religion or certain religious practises, religious insult, or hate speech, those laws may support fines or reprisal for blasphemy.
Through the history of the globe, there have been several reasons why blasphemy has been prohibited. Being a portion of the same, the majority of the justifications for why blasphemy is prohibited. The majority of times, accepted causes are understandable.
The sanctity of God and the religion itself are both something that a significant number of religions work to instill in people’s minds. Scholars in the past have claimed that God is beyond the scope of any investigation or uncertainty and that serious offences like impunity, apostasy, and blasphemy carry death as a potential punishment. According to one of the most celebrated Jurist and theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas: When blasphemy and murder are contrasted in terms of the sins they represent, it is obvious that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more serious than murder, which is a sin done against one’s neighbour. But, if we judge them according to the harm they cause, then murder is the worst sin since it harms one’s neighbour more than it harms God[vi].
He also declared that Even if they do not corrupt others, heretics have a legal right to be executed and stripped of their belongings by the State since they practise a false religion and are therefore blasphemers against God. They can therefore get more just punishment than those who are accused of high treason.
In Afghanistan the Constitution declares Islam to be the official “religion of the state”, stating that no law may be in conflict with the principles of the revered religion of Islam, and the rules requiring allegiance to the tenets of the Islamic Republic’s government and sacred religion cannot be changed. For issues on which the Constitution and Criminal Code are quiet, courts depend on Shari’a[vii]. Because of this, states with an official religion either preserve religious laws as penal laws or create their penal laws based on religious laws, outlawing blasphemy whenever it is suggested in the religious laws themselves.
In support of a stable government the Greek supreme court stated that Religious insult violates the rights of people to their religious beliefs and freedoms, which are both protected as moral-social values, as social & legal interests, and as rights deserving of protection for the sake of civilisation and the polity. This ruling holds that religion is not merely a matter of personal choice, a relationship between the soul of God and himself that is unrelated to the state, but rather that it is the basis of the state and a source of spiritual civilization that influences not only human feelings and thoughts but also deeds[viii].
Consequently, it is extremely clear that religion affects people’s behaviour. As a result, security is required legally since it is a good and social value that motivates people, leading to a stable society and better governance. When the state recognises the “Right to Religion,” the need to protect others’ religious beliefs later develops into a legal duty.
BLASPHEMY LAWS IN INDIA:
India naturally lacks a law that specifically addresses blasphemy. Nonetheless, there are provisions in the Indian Criminal Code (IPC) to deal with communal unrest and violence as well as insult to a religious group. The Indian constitution guarantees every person the freedom to practise, profess, and spread their religion, including all of its many different varieties. While the enjoyment of the same rights should not infringe on public order, morality, or national security of the nation, the same articles also impose appropriate constraints on both the state and the individual. An Indian may file a complaint with the Supreme Court under Article 32 if the state restricts his right to practise his religion, but what if someone really breaches those rights? Chapter XV, titled “Offenses Relating to Religion,” was added to the Indian Penal Code in 1927 to safeguard one person’s rights against those of another. Some laws specifically prohibit blasphemy in India. Some of these sections include:
Section 295[ix] of IPC, states that anybody who knowingly tampers with, destroys, or defiles a religious object considered sacred by Indians of any faith including items other than idols and books is subject to punishment under this clause. He will receive a sentence of up to two years in prison, a fine, or both.
In the case of S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker[x]where the Respondent, a religious reformer, publicly said during a town hall meeting that he intended to offend the Hindu community. He then broke a mud Ganesha idol. The Saivite appellant filed a case under section 295 of the India Criminal Code (“IPC”) for purposefully insulting a different faith. The Saivite community and Hindus who revere Lord Ganesa, according to him, were terrified by the Respondent’s deed. On the preliminary argument that a mud figure of a God cannot qualify as a “thing held sacred by a class of persons,” as required by IPC section 295, the lower courts dismissed his complaint. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
Judge BP Sinha delivered the decision. The Court examined IPC section 295 and discovered that the legislature intended for it to enhance the protections offered to communities’ religious views. Hence, “any thing, however insignificant or devoid of intrinsic worth, if viewed as sacrosanct by any class of humans would come within the scope of the punitive clause.” Even non-religious things were included in this section’s expansion by the court. The Court ruled that the judiciary must show extreme respect for people’s religious beliefs and refrain from passing judgement on them, even if it does not agree with them or think they are reasonable.
Punjab has long been viewed as a region of “competitive communalism,” where each of the province’s major religious sects engaged in activities that heightened tensions between the communities, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. An rising number of publications that were swiftly considered insulting to one or more religious communities in the Punjab and then prohibited serve as evidence to support this claim. The controversy surrounding the release of one such tract, Rangila Rasul, is examined in this article. They ultimately made it necessary for section 295A[xi] of the Penal Code, 1860 to be added (IPC) where it was stated that a person may be penalised under this clause if they purposefully insult or seek to insult the religious emotions of any class of Indian citizens through words, signs, or other visible manifestation. If found guilty under Section 295A of the Indian Criminal Code, a person faces up to three years in prison, a fine, or both penalties.
Section 296 of IPC states that when someone purposefully disrupts a legitimate religious gathering or its ceremonies, they are subject to punishment under this clause, which includes up to a year in prison, a fine, or both[xii].
Section 297 of IPC states that a person is punished under this clause if they purposefully enter a graveyard while knowing that they may offend a certain group of citizens’ religious sensibilities. It is said that this clause safeguards even the religious rights of the deceased. Under this clause, the maximum penalty is a year in jail, a fine, or both[xiii].
Section 153A of IPC penalise anyone who engage in activities that incite hatred amongst various groups based on factors like as language, caste, religion, race, or place of birth. It also puts a liability on those who-
- Spreading animosity through spoken or written words, pictures, signs, or other visual cues with the goal to sow discord, hostility, or commotion among individuals of various groups, religions, castes, or communities.
- Disperse discord and disturb the peace of the people from various ethnic and religious backgrounds in public.
- Drills that encourage and train movement members to use criminal force and violence against members of other racial and religious groups and communities aid in the organisation of some movements[xiv].
Further in some cases court also interpreted this section in a wider perspective like in the case of Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957)[xv] the Court made it clear that statements, words, or actions must be malicious and cannot be accidental in order to be considered an offence under Section 135A. Mens rea is therefore a necessary component of Section 153A of the IPC. Further, in the case of Azizul Haq Kausar Naqwi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1980)[xvi]According to the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in this case, the violation of Section 153A is not committed if the comments or statements are polite, respectful, and do not offend or disrespect the most deeply held religious beliefs of any group or community. Another case of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)[xvii]the court ruled that in order for Section 153A IPC to be violated, it is crucial to determine whether the alleged hostility is between two different groups. Thus, Section 153A IPC does not apply when a religious community is simply mentioned while stirring the religious sensibilities of another community.
WEST ON BLASPHEMY:
According to a recent Pew Research Center study, out of the 198 countries and territories examined globally, 79 (or 40%) had laws or policies in place in 2019 that outlawed blasphemy, which is defined as speech or deeds that are thought to be disrespectful to God or to individuals or things that are regarded as sacred. Apostasy is the act of renunciation of one’s faith, and 22 countries (11%) had laws prohibiting it. The analysis makes use of the Center’s larger body of work on religious freedom constraints around the world. The Middle East and North Africa were the regions with the highest prevalence of these laws, with 18 of the 20 nations in the region (90%) having blasphemy laws and 13 of them (65%) having apostasy laws[xviii].
There are countries where blasphemy results to death penalty , one of those country is Pakistan,Peace and social stability are seriously threatened by Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws. According to the law, “blasphemy” is punished by death, and allegations are frequently followed by deadly mob violence. The state religion is established by the constitution to be Islam. Many of Pakistan’s laws and practises limit the freedom of religion or belief, notwithstanding the constitution’s assurance of adequate protections for minorities to practise their religions freely. There are other countries as well on blasphemy like Pakistan and they are Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Somalia[xix].
In some of the countries a blasphemous act results to prison as well and such countries include India, Bangladesh, Russia, Germany, UAE, Sri Lanka, etc. Germany,Despite the fact that the German constitution forbids a state church, several religious communities as well as the two recognised churches enjoy numerous benefits. The “Defamation of Religions” statute has the potential to have a very broad scope of application and is punishable by imprisonment[xx].
Also, in some western countries blasphemy is legal/De facto for example, Brazil, South Africa, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Switzerland. Brazil,A secular and democratic sovereign state, the Federative Republic of Brazil is sometimes referred to as an emergent global power. It is still legal to commit “crimes against religious feeling” under a de facto “blasphemy” statute. De facto blasphemy laws, or “crimes against religious emotion,” are punishable offences under the Brazilian Penal Code. Although this statute exists, it doesn’t seem to have been applied in practise to prevent or block religious criticism. Yet, the 2013 Reporters Without Borders report on blasphemy laws makes note of the fact that a Brazilian judge gave in to pressure and ordered Google to remove videos from Youtube that contained quotes from the contentious “Innocence of Muslims” movie[xxi].
In present times we have countries where there is no Blasphemy laws, such countries include France, Canada, Ireland, Greece, New Zealand, and Denmark. France, Freethought, anticlericalism, and freedom of expression have a long and illustrious history in France. France is an undivided, secular, democratic, and social Republic, as stated in the country’s founding document from 1958. Nonetheless, a “blasphemy” law was still in effect in Alsace-Moselle until 2016.
The staunch secularism of France has a few strange exceptions. Note, not all French provinces and territories are covered by the “Law on the Separation of the Churches and the State” of 1905. Members of Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Jewish groups may decide to designate a portion of their income tax to their religious group because the Alsace and Lorraine region was a part of the German Empire when the 1905 law was passed. The construction of religious structures may also receive financial assistance from local governments. Politicians campaigning for the removal of the remaining “blasphemy” statute specifically mentioned the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting, which had rekindled calls for its repeal[xxii].
Hence, these are the stances of the western countries on blasphemy laws where we have seen various differences for the provision of blasphemy laws.
CONCLUSION:
Blasphemy laws undoubtedly restrict someone’s freedom of expression and speech, but the question is whether or not their goal is justifiable. Its major goal is to maintain harmony among the populace, not to frighten or threaten minority. If we think about it, someone who purposefully disparages a religion is either trying to harm someone else’s feelings or is trying to incite hatred in society. The goal of laws should be to punish these individuals and stop their behaviour, not to defend religion from them. Creating an acceptable society is the one and only long-term answer to this problem, and education is the solution. As a result, there will be a society that values freedom of speech and the ability to think for oneself while also respecting all minorities, religions, and other people’s beliefs. I don’t think that questions or criticisms of religion should never be made. Even though some socially bad aspects of our traditions exist, they are not infallible, and when society becomes more enlightened, it will no longer regard them as a slight against religion. The country’s assertion that it is vital to safeguard religion from slander is made with proper consideration for the flagrant, draconian, and arbitrarily enforced legislation employed by some nations to persecute minorities.
REFRENCES:
[i] MERRIAM WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-webster.com/ (last visited Mar. 7, 2023).
[ii] Randeepdahiya, An analysis of blasphemy laws in India, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA (Mar. 7, 2023, 9:25 AM), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
[iii] The Editors Of Encyclopedia Britannica, Blasphemy, BRITANNICA (Mar. 7, 2023, 9:40 AM), https://www.britannica.com/
[iv] Wikimedia Foundation, Islam and blasphemy, WIKIPEDIA (Mar. 7, 2023, 10:02 AM), https://en.wikipedia.org/
[v] Scott Vitkovic, Blasphemy In Judaism And Christianity And Freedom Of Speech In The Contemporary Europe, RESEARCH GATE (Mar 07, 2023, 10:25 AM), https://www.researchgate.net/
[vi] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, CHRISTAN CLASSICS ETHEREAL LIBRARY (Mar 07, 2023, 10:50AM), https://ccel.org/
[vii] Bureau of Democracy, 2008 Report on International Religious Freedom – Afghanistan, REFWORLD (Mar 7, 2023, 11:11 AM), https://www.refworld.org/
[viii] SIMONA GRANATA-MENGHINI, BLASPHEMY, INSULT AND HATRED: FINDING ANSWERS IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY 271 (Council of Europe Publishing 2010).
[ix] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 295.
[x] S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others, AIR 1958 SC 1032.
[xi] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 295A.
[xii] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 296.
[xiii] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 297.
[xiv] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 153A.
[xv] Ramji Lal Modi vs The State Of U.P, AIR 1957 SC 620.
[xvi] Azizul Haq Kausar Naquvi And Anr. vs The State, AIR 1980 SC 149.
[xvii] Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 431.
[xviii] Samirah Majumdar And Virginia Villa, Globally, Social Hostilities Related to Religion Decline in 2019, While Government Restrictions Remain at Highest Levels, PEW RESEARCH CENTER(Mar 9, 2023, 2:45 PM), https://www.pewresearch.org/
[xix] END BLASPHEMY LAWS (PAKISTAN), https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/ (Last visited Mar 10, 2023).
[xx] END BLASPHEMY LAWS (GERMANY), https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/ (Last visited Mar 10, 2023).
[xxi] END BLASPHEMY LAWS (BRAZIL), https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/ (Last visited Mar 10, 2023).
[xxii] END BLASPHEMY LAWS(FRANCE), https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/ (Last visited Mar 10, 2023).
SUBMITTED BY:-
NAME:- AYUSH KUMAR GUPTA
COLLEGE NAME:- CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY (CNLU), PATNA