Blasphemy Cases And Supreme Court Precedents
Blasphemy laws in India mainly pertain to offenses involving the disrespect of religious beliefs, practices, or symbols, especially under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This section criminalizes the deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings or beliefs.
While the Indian Supreme Court has been cautious in interpreting these laws, the Court has also emphasized the need to balance freedom of speech with the protection of religious sentiments. Below are four landmark Supreme Court cases involving blasphemy and related issues:
1. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957) AIR 620
Facts:
This case dealt with a law under which a person was convicted for distributing literature that allegedly outraged religious feelings. The appellant, Ramji Lal Modi, was charged under Section 295A of the IPC for making malicious statements about religious beliefs. The issue was whether the provision under Section 295A was violative of the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 295A of the IPC, concluding that it did not violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech. The Court ruled that the freedom of speech cannot be extended to acts that have the potential to harm public order, promote violence, or outrage religious sentiments. The Court noted that the provision was intended to prevent speech that deliberately and maliciously outrages religious feelings.
Key Legal Principle:
The Court established that freedom of speech is not absolute and must be exercised in a manner that does not disturb public peace or outrage religious sentiments. Section 295A was upheld as a valid restriction in the interest of public order and religious harmony.
**2. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574
Facts:
In this case, a film named "Oru Sathya" (translated as "A Truth") was banned by the state government for allegedly outraging religious sentiments. The film depicted a controversial portrayal of certain religious practices, and the state justified the ban on the grounds that it could cause social unrest. The film’s makers challenged the ban, arguing that it violated their right to freedom of expression.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech cannot be suppressed merely because the content is controversial or may hurt religious sentiments. The Court observed that freedom of speech should be balanced with public order and religious harmony, but prior restraint on freedom of expression (such as film censorship) should be used only when there is a clear and present danger.
The Court ruled that the ban on the film was not justified as there was no clear evidence of imminent harm to public order. In the case of blasphemy, the Court emphasized that there should be a tangible threat or incitement to violence before restrictions on speech can be enforced.
Key Legal Principle:
The Court established the "clear and present danger" test for restricting speech, holding that freedom of expression is vital in a democracy but must be limited when there is a substantial threat to public peace or religious harmony.
3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1961) 3 SCR 842
Facts:
In this case, a journalist named K.K. Verma was charged under Section 295A for writing an article that allegedly ridiculed a particular religion. The article was claimed to have been deliberately written to insult the religious sentiments of the people. The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of Section 295A, arguing that it infringed on his freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld Section 295A and dismissed the petition. The Court reiterated that while freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), especially when the speech incites hatred or violence.
The Court emphasized that expressions which deliberately insult or provoke religious feelings have the potential to disturb public order, and such acts can be restricted.
Key Legal Principle:
This case reinforced the principle that freedom of speech can be limited if the speech or writing incites hatred, contempt, or violence against any religion. Section 295A was upheld as a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
**4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
This landmark case revolved around Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which penalized sending offensive or menacing messages through communication devices. The case arose after two women were arrested for posting on Facebook regarding the funeral of a political leader. The police took action under Section 66A of the IT Act, arguing that their posts hurt religious sentiments and were offensive.
Shreya Singhal, a petitioner, challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A, arguing that it violated Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech. The main issue was whether a law that curbs speech perceived to insult religious sentiments is justified under the Indian Constitution.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, declaring it unconstitutional. The Court held that the section was too vague and gave the authorities excessive power to curb free speech without adequate safeguards. The Court ruled that the law was overly broad and could be used to suppress free expression arbitrarily.
The Court recognized that while freedom of speech can be restricted in cases where it incites violence or hatred, it cannot be curtailed simply for hurting feelings or offending religious sensibilities.
Key Legal Principle:
The ruling established that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed for vague reasons such as "hurting religious sentiments." The Court emphasized the need for laws to be precise and clearly defined to prevent misuse.
**5. Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association (2000) 7 SCC 282
Facts:
In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with an issue where a church was accused of disturbing religious sentiments and public peace due to the loud music played during religious services. The neighbors objected, claiming that the loud prayers were offensive to their religious beliefs and disturbing the peace of the locality.
The case raised the question of whether freedom of religion, as provided under Article 25 of the Constitution, could be restricted in the context of public order and religious sentiments.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court held that religious freedom is a fundamental right, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and health. The Court ruled that while the Church had the right to conduct religious ceremonies, it could not do so in a way that disrupted public peace or caused nuisance to others.
Key Legal Principle:
This case reinforced that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are not absolute rights and can be restricted if they disturb public order or outrage religious sentiments. The Court established that rights must be exercised in a manner that respects the sensitivities of others.
Key Legal Principles Derived from These Cases:
Limits of Freedom of Expression: The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be restricted when it offends religious sentiments, incites violence, or disturbs public order.
Balancing Religious Sentiments and Free Speech: The Court has found that while religious sentiments should be protected, restrictions must be reasonable and not overly broad. Blasphemy laws can only be invoked when speech crosses the line into malicious, provocative actions that lead to public disturbance.
The "Clear and Present Danger" Test: For any restriction on speech, including those related to blasphemy, there must be a clear and present danger to public order, peace, or harmony.
Vagueness of Laws: Laws like Section 66A of the IT Act were struck down for being vague and open to arbitrary misuse. Blasphemy laws must be clearly defined to avoid unnecessary suppression of free speech.
These rulings illustrate the Indian Supreme Court’s approach to balancing the right to free speech with the need to protect religious harmony in the country.
RELATED Blog
0 comments