Bias-Motivated Offences
1. Meaning of Bias-Motivated Offences
A bias-motivated offence occurs when a criminal act is committed primarily because of the victim’s perceived identity or characteristic, such as:
Race or ethnicity
Religion or caste
Gender or sexual orientation
Disability
Political affiliation
Such offences are considered aggravated crimes because they threaten not only the individual but also the community they belong to.
In India, these offences are primarily covered under:
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 153A – Promoting enmity between groups
Section 295A – Deliberate insult to religious beliefs
Section 298 – Uttering words with intent to wound religious feelings
Section 505 – Statements conducing public mischief
Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy, if bias is a motive
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (POA Act)
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
2. Key Characteristics of Bias-Motivated Offences
Motivated by prejudice or hatred
The intent is discriminatory, not neutral.
Targeting a person/group for identity traits
E.g., a person attacked because they belong to a minority community.
Aggravated nature
Punishment is usually harsher than ordinary assault or damage.
Community impact
Instills fear among a larger group, not just the individual.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS (6 Detailed Cases)
Case 1: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors. (1986, Supreme Court)
Facts:
A mob attacked a Sikh family in retaliation after communal riots.
Victims were targeted solely for their religion.
Legal Issue:
Whether the act constitutes a bias-motivated crime under IPC Sections 153A, 295A.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
Bias-motivated violence is aggravated due to targeting of a community.
Conviction can be for abetment of communal disharmony and attempt to cause hurt.
Emphasized intent and motive in assessing punishment.
Importance:
This case set the precedent for linking communal bias with enhanced criminal liability.
Case 2: State v. Dr. Kanwar Singh (Delhi High Court, 1998)
Facts:
Dr. Singh published derogatory remarks about a religious community.
Alleged violation of Section 295A IPC.
Legal Issue:
Whether freedom of speech can be invoked as a defence against a bias-motivated offence.
Judgment:
Court held:
Freedom of speech is restricted where deliberate insult to religion is evident.
Deliberate intention to wound religious feelings satisfies the mens rea for bias-motivated offences.
Importance:
Clarified that prejudice or hostility toward a group is key, not mere expression.
Case 3: State v. Ramesh & Ors. (Kerala High Court, 2003)
Facts:
Ramesh attacked a Dalit family in retaliation for a caste-related dispute.
Offences included assault, property damage, and intimidation.
Judgment:
Under the POA Act, bias-motivated attacks on Scheduled Castes are severe offences with strict punishment.
Court emphasized that caste-based motive is sufficient for enhanced penalty, even if physical injury is minor.
Importance:
Reinforced that bias does not require large-scale violence; even single-target attacks are punishable.
Case 4: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997, Supreme Court)
Facts:
PUCL challenged inadequate police action in communal riots.
Victims were targeted solely because of religion.
Judgment:
Court held that authorities have a constitutional duty to protect minorities from bias-motivated attacks.
Highlighted that inaction or negligence by the state can constitute complicity.
Importance:
Introduced the concept of state responsibility in bias-motivated offences.
Case 5: State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Khan (Bombay High Court, 2008)
Facts:
Ahmed Khan repeatedly harassed a Muslim family due to religious bias.
Acts included verbal abuse, threats, and property damage.
Judgment:
Court convicted under Sections 295A, 298, and 153A IPC.
Held that repeated acts with prejudice motive constitute bias-motivated harassment even if physical harm is minor.
Importance:
Established that bias-motivated offences can include verbal and psychological abuse, not only physical assault.
Case 6: State v. Vinod Kumar (Delhi High Court, 2010)
Facts:
Vinod attacked a transgender person based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Offences included assault and criminal intimidation.
Judgment:
Court held that attacks based on gender or sexual orientation are bias-motivated and attract enhanced punishment.
Emphasized that community-targeted prejudice includes modern identity categories, not just religion or caste.
Importance:
Broadened the definition of bias-motivated crimes to include LGBTQ+ and gender-based discrimination.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES EVOLVED FROM CASE LAWS
Motive is crucial:
The bias or prejudice behind the crime is often more significant than the act itself in determining severity.
Enhanced punishment:
Bias-motivated offences attract harsher sentences than similar non-prejudiced offences.
State accountability:
Government and police must act to prevent or curb communal, caste, or identity-based violence.
Expanding categories:
Modern jurisprudence includes gender, sexual orientation, and disability as protected characteristics.
Verbal/psychological abuse counts:
Threats, insults, or harassment with bias are treated as crimes, even without physical assault.
RELATED Blog
comments