Section 295A does not even clearly draw a line between genuine criticism and deliberate, malicious intentions to insult religious text.
On the eve of 15th August, the entire country was celebrating the Independence Day with great zeal. While the entire nation was all eyes for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech iconic Red Fort, few kilometres away in the national capital Delhi, in front of historic India Gate, two youths burnt the copies of various religious books and even the Indian Constitution to ashes.
Though there wasn’t much outrage against it, the video of the incident went viral on social media inviting sharp criticism from all spheres. The police nabbed the two youths with the help of viral video and now both of them are behind bars. After this incident, a Dalit group in Uttar Pradesh’s Ballia set the Hindu Holy Book on fire as a mark of protest. Reportedly, pictures of several Hindu gods and goddesses were burnt too. However, these are not isolated incidents.
Apparently, such incidents widen the already prevalent religious and cast rift between the different communities in India. To maintain communal harmony in the state, it is the biggest challenge in front of the state governments to prevent such kind of incidents from happening. However, if such incidents do take place then India also has laws in place to tackle such cases.
Section 295A of Indian Penal Code charges such deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. The section elaborates that- Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
If convicted under this section, a person can be awarded imprisonment up to three years or fine or both. The cognizable offence is non-bailable. However, the law has been criticised for the many loose ends that leave enough space for people to misuse it. It does not even clearly draw a line between genuine criticism and deliberate, malicious intentions. This is the very reason why there have been several demands to abolish the regressive law.
At a time when the courts are considering to put an end to outdated laws such as adultery, Punjab cabinet under CM Capt. Amarinder Singh cleared an amendment to the Indian Penal Code to make “sacrilege of all religious texts punishable with life imprisonment”. Announcing the decision of cabinet on Twitter, CM Captain Amarinder Singh said that the government “will place the Bill in the Vidhan Sabha for approval” with a quick rejoinder that his government is “firmly committed to preserving communal harmony in the state”.
The Cabinet today decided on amendments to IPC to make sacrilege of all religious texts punishable with life imprisonment. We will place the Bill in the Vidhan Sabha for approval. I stand firmly committed to preserve communal harmony in the State. pic.twitter.com/0Bm8150IH1
— Capt.Amarinder Singh (@capt_amarinder) August 21, 2018
This may open doors for more amendment of Section 295 A. If the amendment receives a heads up from the President, then under the new Section 295AA sacrilege of Bhagavad Gita, Quran, Guru Granth Sahib, Bible or any other religious book will be punishable by life imprisonment. While the government says that the amendments are aimed at protecting the communal harmony in the state, what it fails to understand (or chooses to ignore) it may also open door to its blatant misuse.
The section 295A has been time and again challenged in the Supreme Court. The first such case came into light on April 5, 1957. In Ramji Lal Modi vs the State of UP, Ramji Modi, the editor of a cow-protection magazine had been booked under Section 295A. However, he took the case to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the same.
In the last 10 years especially, there have been several cases registered under this archaic law. In March 2007, a newspaper editor BV Seetharam was arrested under the Sections 153A, 153B, and 295 of the IPC for allegedly promoting religious hatred. He had written articles criticizing the public nudity of the Digambara Jain monks.
In February 2009, the police arrested Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, the editor and the publisher respectively of the Kolkata-based English daily The Statesman for hurting Muslim sentiments. The police charged Kumar and Sinha under section 295A because they had reprinted an article from The Independent by its columnist Johann Hari. Titled “Why should I respect oppressive religions?”, the article stated Hari’s belief that the right to criticise any religion was being eroded around the world. Muslim protestors in Kolkata reacted to Hari’s belief by violent demonstrations at the offices of The Statesman.
In November 2012, Maharashtra Police arrested Shaheen Dhada (21) for questioning the total shutdown in the city for Bal Thackeray’s funeral in a Facebook post, and also her friend Renu Srinivasan (20) for liking her post. Although no religious issue was involved, the two were charged under Section 295 (A) for hurting religious sentiments, apart from Section 66 (a) of the Information Technology Act 2000. However, the charges under Section 295 (A) were later dropped and the girls were charged with Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to statements which create or promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.
In September 2014, Gujarat Police arrested Sunil Jagdishsinh Rajput whose Facebook post allegedly provoked Muslims to go on a riot. He was booked under IPC 153(C) and 295(A) and the bail was denied. In Dec 2015, Azam Khan, Senior Minister of Uttar Pradesh government, stated that RSS workers are homosexual; In response, Kamlesh Tiwari given the objectionable statement against Prophet Mohammed. Kamlesh Tiwari was arrested under National Security Act and bail was denied.
On 20 September 2016, Tarak Biswas, a freethinker blogger, was arrested for posting updates on the social media for criticizing Islam. He was produced before the local court, where he was remanded to seven days of police custody.
In a more recent past, comedian Kiku Sharda was accused of hurting the religious sentiments of devotees of Ram Rahim by impersonating his character. He was charged under IPC 295A. Even India’s captain cool did not escape the wrath of the draconian law. In an advertisement, Mahendra Singh Dhoni was dressed up as Vishnu Bhagwan, after which a lower court in Delhi had sent a non-bailable warrant against him. Although, the Hindu sentiments have not been hurt by the slogans of “Har Har Modi, Ghar Ghar Modi”, otherwise the current Prime Minister could have been trapped in a legal battle.
Taking a dig at Punjab government’s decision, former Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju expressed his opinion in a Facebook post. He says, “For example, the Bible says that on the fourth day God created the sun, and I say that without a sun, there cannot be even a single day and three nights. Now according to this law, I can be punished for life imprisonment.”
He further said that the Quran 17: 1 hadeeth says that the Prophet flew from Makkah to Jerusalem on a horse with wings, and from there he flew to heaven to see Allah. “But if I say that there are no winged horses and horses cannot fly, so I can get life imprisonment,” Katju pointed out. Giving example from Ramayana, he said if he says there was no “Pushpak”-like aircraft in ancient India and it was only in 1903 when the Wright Brothers invented the aircraft in America, then I could be imprisoned for life.
Tussi great ho @capt_amarinder ! pic.twitter.com/4pNusOsSkQ
— Markandey Katju (@mkatju) August 22, 2018
Though hate speech and acts that promote religious or cast enmity need to be curbed, it should not happen at the cost of compromising Freedom of Expression. Moreover, the law should be crystal clear with no loopholes with accurate specifics. The provision of life imprisonment on the insult of scriptures/ books is not a complete solution to the problem. The unclear definition of which acts amount to an offence under this law will open more ways for the act to be misused. Criticism should be respected and should be crushed with such laws. Otherwise, leaders like Biplab Deb will present their skewed interpretation of religious texts before the people while logical critics are sentenced to life imprisonment. The steps aimed at resolving the problems should not end up giving passage for the birth of new ones.
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
