[ad_1]
In September 2016, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Gujarat High Court to obtain a ban on the location-based augmented reality game ‘Pokemon Go’ for harming religious sentiments by displaying images of white people in various places of worship. religious groups. Although the petition was granted and notices issued to the game’s developers, the case was criticized for frivolity and the Supreme Court refused to ban the game.
But not all issues that tend to “hurt religious sentiments” are resolved silently. In 1927, a case in which a publisher was influenced by the religious sentiments of a particular community came to a tragic end. The company published a flyer containing some disparaging remarks about the Prophet Muhammad’s private life. The publisher was sued under Section 153A of the IPC which penalizes attempting to promote hostility between groups.
However, the Supreme Court acquitted the publisher of all charges. The acquittal was criticized and the publisher was eventually killed in 1927.
The case was made known by ‘Rangeela Rasool’ and became a precursor to the enactment of Section 295A of the IPC which punishes those found guilty of willful and malicious intent to stir up religious sentiments. After this case, the need for a law dealing with the offense of hurting religious feelings arose and led to a new law.
Amid the recent controversy over Adipurush, the law and historical debates about hurting religious sentiments have taken center stage.
“Harming religious feelings” has been made an offense under Law 295A of the Iraqi Penal Code and is often cited in another section; 153A IPC.
Section 295a of the IPC
“Any person, with willful and malicious intent to offend the religious sentiments of any class of citizens of India by words, whether spoken or written, or by signs or visual representations or otherwise, or insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class, shall be liable to imprisonment of either class for a period that may extend to (three years), or with a fine, or with both penalties,” as stated in the section.
Section 153A IPC
Section 153a of the Islamic Penal Code punishes “promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth and residence, language, etc., and acts affecting the maintenance of harmony.”
Section 295 of the IPC
Section 295 of the Islamic Penal Code makes destroying, damaging, or desecrating a place of worship or sacred object, with intent to insult the religion of a class of person, punishable by imprisonment that may extend to two years, or a fine, or both. This section was enacted to force people to respect the religious sensitivities of people of different faiths or religious beliefs.
Section 298 of the IPC
Pronunciation, words, etc. with the intent to hurt anyone’s religious feelings. Whosoever, with willful intent to hurt the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in sight of that person or places, anything in sight of that person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may Extended to one year, or with a fine, or both.
Let’s look at similar historical cases:
Notable cases
Ramji Lal Modi vs Uttar Pradesh
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 295A and called it necessary to protect public order. As a result, it is now considered a justifiable restriction on freedom of speech and expression under Section 19(2) of the Indian Constitution of 1950.
Baba Khalil Ahmed v. Uttar Pradesh
In this case, the Supreme Court decided in 1960 that the “malicious intent” of the accused could be determined not only from the speech in question but also from external sources.
Ramlal Puri vs Madhya Pradesh
In this very important case, the Supreme Court has held that a distinction must be made between the types of actions that tend to offend religious sentiments. In the judgment, the Supreme Court said, “The test to be applied to such cases is not that of an abnormal or hypersensitive man, but that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence.”
MS Dhoni case
In April 2017, while expressing concern over the misuse of Section 295A of the IPC, Justices Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar and M.M. Shantanagoudar said: “Insults to religion were offered unintentionally, negligently or without any willful or malicious intent to anger the religious sentiments of that caste.” Do not come under oath. The case involved cricketer MS Dhoni who had challenged the criminal case against him for hurting religious sentiments for portraying him as ‘Lord Vishnu’ on the cover of a business magazine in 2013.
Section 295A has been greatly abused and it is a fact that the Supreme Court and various higher courts have highlighted. But the need for such a law cannot also be ignored from the point of maintaining public order.
Adeporush Ro
Recently, the Allahabad High Court severely confronted the makers of Adipurush while hearing two PILs filed against the expositions and dialogues of the feature film.
During the hearing, the court said, “Do not touch the Qur’an, the Bible and other sacred texts. We may make it clear that the matter is not about any one religion. But you must not portray any religion in a bad light. The court has no religion of its own. Our only concern is to maintain the state of law and order.”
It is important to note that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution which also covers the right to the press or the freedom of any form of artistic expression is regulated by certain restrictions and knights. Public order and morality are an important part of it. Hence the existence of Section 295a could serve as a reasonable limitation on Section 19; A fact highlighted by the courts in several rulings.
In this regard, C.S. Adcock, Professor of History at the University of Washington, made an important observation in his paper, “Violence, Emotion, and the Law: A Brief History of Section 295A and Its Precursors,” writing, “Lawsuit Filed Against Wendy Donegger’s The Hindu: An Alternative History Under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code has sparked controversy over freedom of speech.Section 295A punishes speech that offends the religious feelings of a group of Indian citizens.According to one view, strict application of laws such as 295A is justified, because peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society like India depends on Extreme restraint in discussing religion.”
He added, “The history of Section 295A and its antecedents show that, contrary to expectation, such laws have not served to prevent violence. Instead, they have encouraged violent displays, with the result that contemporary politics have fueled religious sentiment.”
[ad_2]
