Abstract
Blasphemy laws in India, rooted in the colonial-era Indian Penal Code of 1860, have long been a subject of debate. These laws, particularly Section 295A, were designed to maintain public order by penalizing acts intended to outrage religious sentiments. While originally intended to manage religious sensitivities in a diverse society, their relevance and application in contemporary India have become contentious. This abstract examines whether these laws are outdated remnants of the Victorian era or necessary measures for maintaining social harmony in a multi-religious nation.
Blasphemy laws in India were introduced by the British colonial administration to manage the religious diversity and prevent communal violence. Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Over time, these laws have been invoked in various instances to address perceived insults to religious figures, symbols, and beliefs.
In present-day India, blasphemy laws continue to be relevant due to the country’s pluralistic society. With significant populations adhering to various religions, these laws are often seen as tools to maintain public order and prevent communal discord. Proponents argue that blasphemy laws are necessary to protect religious harmony and prevent hate speech that could incite violence.
However, blasphemy laws face substantial criticism for being tools of oppression rather than protection. Critics argue that these laws are archaic, stemming from Victorian-era morality, and are often misused to stifle freedom of expression, dissent, and artistic freedom. The broad and vague nature of Section 295A makes it susceptible to abuse, leading to arbitrary arrests and censorship. High-profile cases have highlighted how these laws can be weaponized against individuals and groups, often leading to prolonged legal battles and social ostracism.
The challenge lies in balancing the protection of religious sentiments with upholding fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression. Modern democratic values necessitate a re-evaluation of these laws to prevent their misuse while ensuring they serve their original purpose of maintaining public order. Some suggest that the laws should be reformed to include clearer definitions and higher thresholds for what constitutes blasphemy, thus preventing frivolous and malicious prosecutions.
Keywords: –
Blasphemy laws, Section 295A, Indian Penal Code, Religious sentiments, Public order, Communal harmony, Freedom of expression, Victorian-era laws, Legal reform, Colonial legacy, Religious diversity, Misuse of laws, Hate speech, Social harmony, Democratic values
Method Used:
The method used for this paper involves a combination of:
Literature Review: Examining existing academic and legal literature on blasphemy laws in India, including historical context, legal interpretations, and case studies.
Legal Analysis: Analyzing the provisions of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code and its application in various legal cases to understand its impact on freedom of expression and religious sentiments.
Comparative Study: Comparing blasphemy laws in India with similar laws in other jurisdictions to draw parallels and identify best practices or areas for reform.
Case Studies: Examining specific high-profile cases where blasphemy laws were invoked to understand their implications on individuals, communities, and legal outcomes.
This methodological approach ensures a comprehensive analysis of the topic, considering historical, legal, comparative, and policy perspectives to provide a balanced and informed discussion on blasphemy laws in India.
Review of literature
The literature on blasphemy laws in India provides a comprehensive examination of their origins, impact, and contemporary relevance. Historically rooted in colonial governance to manage religious diversity, these laws, notably Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, have evolved into a contentious issue concerning freedom of expression and communal harmony. Legal analyses highlight the broad and subjective nature of Section 295A, often criticized for its potential to stifle dissent and artistic freedom under the guise of protecting religious sentiments.
Case studies underscore how these laws have been invoked in various instances, leading to prolonged legal battles and societal tensions. Comparative perspectives with other jurisdictions, such as Pakistan and Indonesia, reveal differing approaches to blasphemy laws and their implications for human rights. Scholars and activists advocate for reforms that clarify definitions, introduce safeguards against misuse, and ensure alignment with democratic values and international standards of human rights.
Overall, the literature emphasizes the need for nuanced reforms to blasphemy laws in India, balancing the protection of religious sentiments with robust safeguards for freedom of expression and individual rights in a diverse and democratic society.
Introduction
Our country has been serving as a home to several major religions in the world and in its sacred history, has also acted as the birthplace of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. With the rule of the Mughals and the British, there came the advent of two more major religions.
This co-existence in our religious diversity led to India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru to declare the nation a secular republic. At present day, the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India gives us the Preamble that declares our land a secular nation.
With religions engraved in our social norms, media and even our languages till some extent, the state has time and again witnessed the sentiments that citizens possess regarding their faith.
The demolition of Babri Masjid in the year 1992 by Hindu extremists that claimed the mosque to have been built on the birthplace of Deity Ram, caused religious tensions throughout the nation and also sparked widespread communal riots.
The Godhra train incident, wherein spontaneous communal violence at a railway station resulted in a mob burning down a train that carried Hindu Pilgrims from Ayodhya. This highly controversial incident lead to one of the bloodiest riots our land has witnessed in recent times.
On March 21, 1910 the popular Hindu festival of Holi coincided with the Muslim day of Mourning called as Barawafat. This polar opposite means of religious expression lead to communal riots in the district of Peshawar, that lies in the North West frontier of present day Pakistan.
The similarity amongst the three riots was religion. It is the differences that exists in our society that creates the infection of communal hatred. This disease resides within individuals who are exposed to extremist racists ideas and when they are not curtailed, we witness massacres as mentioned above.
Thus, such a delicate situation calls for a legislation to promote peaceful co-existence and to safeguard religious sentiments.
The Rule of Law
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code protects religious sentiments of all inhabiting the land. It achieves this objective by laying down consequences for any act that is deliberate and malicious in nature and are intended to insult and outrage religious beliefs. Legal scholars consider this provision as an Indian application of hate speech law.
Analysing the law through an objective legal lens, the section is a non-bailable cognisable offence.
Precedence
Current Regulatory Application of the Law
A landmark case that formed the development of such a law was Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh wherein the convict published an article in a magazine focused on protecting cows and respecting it’s significance in the Hindu faith. The article was deemed to have intentionally insulted the Muslim community. Since all elements of the statute where fulfilled as there was existence of deliberation, malicious interest as well as the offensive nature of the statement, the petitioner was found guilty and accordingly convicted.
Dear cues then appeals the judgements in the High Court and then in the Supreme Court he got no relief and he ended up filing a red petition under article 32 of the constitution challenging the section as an infringement to article 19 of the constitution freedom of speech and expression the petitioner submitted the argument the section 295 a fails to make a distinction between criticism of religion which causes public disorder and criticism of religion that does not cause public disorder hence the petitioner concluded that the impugned section does not enjoy the protection of article 19 2 because it is in law that is imposing restriction on religion and it is not a law that is covered under the ambit of public tranquility this primarily suggests that there is no necessary relationship between offences against religion and its impact on public order the quote forever focused on the broader aspect of article 19 and believe that if provision is not working directly to maintain the public order and is being used under a broader sense to work in the interest of maintaining public order it should be still considered as constitutional
Second case was Sujata Bhadra v State of West Bengal
This case was filed against the author of Tas lima Nasreen for her book “Lujja” wherein she mentioned the atrocities which committed against Hindus in Bangladesh polls after the Babri Masjid demolition. The book had no objections as she backed her clear arguments with facts in reality.
The Judgement of the court categorically claims, “Insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs when made with an intention which must be deliberate or malicious of outraging the religious feeling of a class of India”, only then this section will be attracted.
The expression deliberates and malicious is indicative of the intention of legislature and hence should be both in the form of deliberately malicious. If it is made knowingly but with an intention oriented by securing or stimulating the welfare of the society or emancipating the women, in such case the outrage of religious susceptibilities or beliefs even though intentional can‘t be termed as deliberate and malicious.
Analysing the statute along with the rationale applied in numerous cases, we can understand that a person must insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of any class of citizens of India. This said insult must be with deliberation and malicious in nature with the intent of outraging the religious feelings of the set class citizens. Finally this said insult must be by words either spoken or written by signs or by visible representation or otherwise. As one can notice, the legislature is rather ambiguous when it comes to the modes of communication and expression of such terms.
Nupur Sharma Controversy
On 27 May 2022, Sharma participated in a debate on the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute on the Times Now television channel. According to Sharma, in response to remarks (perceived to be derogatory to Hindu God Shiva) by her opposition speaker and by many Muslim personalities on social media, she replied regarding Prophet Muhammad and the age of one of his wives, Aisha, noting that Aisha was 6-years-old when married, and 9 years old when the marriage was consummated.
The Supreme Court said that “her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire” and blamed her for “igniting emotions across the country”. The judges also observed that “her outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident at Udaipur” – a reference to the beheading done by two Muslim men of a Hindu tailor who had supported Ms Sharma on social media platforms.
Following protests from several Islamic nations, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran, over her controversial remarks, the BJP suspended Ms Sharma from the party last month. The head of the party’s Delhi media unit, Naveen Kumar Jindal, was also expelled for sharing a screenshot of her offensive comment in a tweet.
Nupur Sharma was defended by fellow Hindu Nationalists by putting forward the defense of truth. They claimed that the information stated by Nupur Sharma was provided in religious texts and was deemed true. She had not put forward her opinions or critiqued the fact and only use it to further an argument. Herein, the law developed into a form wherein truth was not a valid defence. The law for blasphemy does not rely on the legal principle used for defamation. The materiality of the fact does not protect the speaker for if it were the case, we would live in a fragile society where citizens would pin point weaknesses in each other’s faiths and in the name of truth, they would get away. We must understand the core objective of the law which was to prevent public disorder. True statements can still pose a threat to harmony and thus must not be allowed either.
Compliance with a code of Ethics
JUDAISM: The Old Testament: Leviticus 24:13-16: “The one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the name, shall be put to death.”
CHRISTIANITY: Matthew 12:31-32: “And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Mark 3:28-29: “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
ISLAM: Q6:108: “Do not revile those whom they invoke other than Allah, because they will revile Allah in ignorance out of spite”
International Incidents
Religious tensions are not only restricted to our nation, hence here are some foreign cases in order to comparatively analyse this issue.
JUNAID HAFEEZ (Pakistan)
Junaid Hafeez is imprisoned and sentenced to death for blasphemy. On March 13, 2013, authorities arrested Hafeez, a lecturer at Bahauddin Zakariya University, after his students accused him of insulting the Prophet Muhammad on social media. On December 21, 2019, A district and sessions court in Multan sentenced Hafeez to death for “insulting the Prophet Muhammad” (Sec. 295-C PPC). He was also sentenced to life in prison for “desecrating the Qur’an” (Sec. 295-B PPC) and 10 years in prison for “intending to outrage religious feelings” (Sec. 295-A PPC). Hafeez was also heavily fined.
AHMAD AL-SHAMRI (Saudi Arabia)
Ahmad al-Shamri is a Saudi Arabian man who in February 2015 was convicted by trial on charges of blasphemy and apostasy. In his twenties at the time of conviction, he had apparently posted videos to social media in which he renounced Islam and made disparaging remarks about the Prophet Muhammad. This attracted the attention of government authorities, who quickly arrested him and made him stand trial.
JE SUIS CHARLIE (France)
The French satirical newspaper of Charlie Hebdo allegedly insulted the Prophet Mohammad through its cartoons. This caused two Muslim brothers who in belief to avenge the religious insult, acted in the form of a shooting in their office, killing 12 people and injuring 11 more. This incident gave rise to an online slogan with people posting ‘Je suis Charlie’ (I am Charlie) in outrage.
Compliance with Indian Laws
According to section 19 under the Right to Freedom in the Indian Constitution 1 (a) To freedom of speech and expression
2. Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
This fundamental human right ensures that individuals can express their opinions, beliefs, and ideas without fear of censorship or retaliation from the government or other authorities. It’s a cornerstone of democracy, allowing for open dialogue, debate, and the exchange of diverse viewpoints essential for societal progress and understanding.
This sub clause connects this civil right to the hate speech crime. We often encounter people criticising the laws for blasphemy and claim it to be an infringement on their civil right, however after reading the two statutes simultaneously we can understand the link. Thus, there exists no scope for concept and the legislation has achieved coherence in this subject.
Although, the law continues to face criticism for encroaching and restricting our freedom.
The religious sentiments that the law is aimed at protecting instead results in stifling free expression and negating open discourse on the same matters. We have seen in the past how various social norms change over time influenced by the common conscience. We humans develop our society and along with that development there comes change in our morals. These morals demand a change in a religious text and believes that the only way this can be achieved is through questioning, rationalising and debating on religious text. Thus, scholars believe that the law of blasphemy serves as a barrier in open communication on religious subjects as individuals face the fear of prosecution. We must pay heed to the importance of change through conversation.
It is also believed that the prerogative of every generation is to shatter social constructs and to question norms that they do not completely understand. It is only by doing this can society develop and evolve overtime and thus there are critics that believe questioning is a part of human evolution.
As for the field of art, all forms ranging from movies to music and from paintings to literature have always been a reflection of society and have also often been a critique to society for example the Renaissance. Now how can we expect artists to express themselves freely and to come up with new age political art when the sword of blasphemy hangs over their neck. Is it worth sacrificing art in order to save religious sentiments?
Some argue that blasphemy laws are necessary to protect the religious sentiments of individuals and communities in India, where diverse religions coexist. These laws aim to prevent hate speech and religiously motivated violence by prohibiting speech or actions deemed offensive to religious beliefs.
We have time and again seen the importance of safeguarding religious sentiments in our land. Thus we require legislation and a framework and more importantly the state to intervene and protect sentiments and to do everything in its power to avoid massacres by preventing hate speech and religiously motivated violence.
Impact of the Law
In order to propagate social harmony, the state relies on blasphemy laws the threat of prosecution and the restriction on expression aids in preventing inter-religious tensions and conflicts that as we have seen have raised from perceived insults to religious figures of practices. Thus, by discouraging provocative speech or actions the statute contributes to peaceful coexistence amongst the richest religious communities.
Here on the statute also advocates on the importance of respecting religious beliefs and practices all over the country. They also believe that these laws promote mutual respect by discouraging speech and behaviour that could mock religious symbols of figures.
We cannot expect individuals to not commit these acts out of moral obligations and thus we require a proper redressal legal framework to ensure an effective implementation of this legislation. Thus citizen should be provided with redressals when their religious sentiments have been offended and it is only by prosecuting the guilty that the aggrieved parties can be consoled and accountability and justice can prevail.
In regard to the political impact of the statute, the law serves us to our benefit as well as hindrance. This double edged sword restricts politicians and refrains them from polarising the crowd on religious grounds. However, politicians can also use the same law as a tool to mobilise support from religious groups and to suppress dissent. By accusing individuals for blasphemy they can make use of religious norms to gain publicity they can further add fuel to the fire by exaggerating incidence and urging citizens to seek redressals against those who are guilty.
In order to evaluate the law perfectly we must also consider the existence of majority and minority rights. We live in a society where major religions are often more visible and powerful then their minor counterparts. Therefore it is not a fair assumption to believe that this redressal and safeguarding will be at everyone’s disposal. This law tends to polarise the audience for example the Nupur Sharma controversy ended up in a debate between Hindus and Muslims. Thus it makes us wonder that if a small minority religion is offended by the words of a major religion follower will the redressal continue to be sought and will justice prevail. It is in such scenarios that the strength of the law will come to test.
Research Methodology
The materiality content of this research paper is a hybrid form of textual analysis along with personal interviews.
For the research aspect, the factual data for the legal analysis has been derived from the respective statutes, acts and other legislations. Whereas the data for the political implementation, we have relied on the political statements and critics of certain controversies. It is through personal interviews, that we have counter analysed the debate on the core concept of blasphemy and discussions regarding its implementation have been embodied in the paper.Thus, the form of data collection is both primary as well as secondary leaning more towards the latter.
After carefully analysing the political and legal impact of the law, we have formed a stance on the subject. It is by constantly weighing the pros and cons of the law, we have come to the final stance that there is need for this law in our nation. There may be countries that have discarded this provision however in our land of religious extremism, the presence of such a framework is vital. However, we do demand the state to improve the statute and work on its clarity. An ambiguous law is not only detrimental to the judiciary but is also vulnerable to misuse. In order to achieve justice and fairly punish the guilty, there must be a proper metric of blasphemy. Scenarios such as humour, do not posses the malicious intent however they can equally cause public discord (as seen in the “Je Suis Charlie” Controversy). Thus, we need the legislation to provide us clarity regarding the grey areas of the law as we cannot wait for certain cases and precedence to be set in order to understand the law completely. The legislation can achieve this task through the method of illustrations as they have previously tackled the predicament of applications of laws in certain acts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our society will hopefully reach a state one day wherein there is no need for such a law to safeguard sentiments as the public will grow more tolerable and respectful to other faiths. Until then, we shall depend on the law of blasphemy and work on developing it in order to maintain public harmony.
Future Research Opportunities
Future research on blasphemy laws in India could focus on their impact on freedom of expression, including artistic freedom and political dissent. Comparative studies with other countries could provide insights into effective legal frameworks and challenges. Analyzing recent judicial decisions and societal perceptions can illuminate evolving interpretations and public attitudes. Gendered perspectives on blasphemy laws and their intersection with gender issues merit exploration. Additionally, proposing legislative reforms and policy recommendations aligned with international human rights standards could enhance the balance between protecting religious sentiments and upholding constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality.
References
1. Singh, P. (2019). Blasphemy laws in India: A critique from a human rights perspective.** *Journal of Law, Religion and State, 7(2), 223-245. doi:10.1163/22124810-00702004
2. Bhandari, A. (2018). Freedom of speech versus religious sentiments: A critical analysis of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.Journal of Indian Law and Society, 9(1), 45-62.
3. Chander, A. (2015). Public order, hate speech, and the Indian constitution.UC Davis Law Review, 48(2), 569-596.
4. Gupta, S. (2016). The evolution and judicial interpretation of blasphemy laws in India.Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, 44(3), 301-324.
5. Kumar, A. (2017). Blasphemy laws in India: An analysis of judicial trends and societal implications.Journal of Indian Law and International Relations, 5(1), 78-95.
Arjun Chandra