Criminalization Of Blasphemy And Religious Offenses In Bangladesh
1. Overview: Blasphemy and Religious Offenses in Bangladesh
Bangladesh criminalizes blasphemy and offenses against religion under several legal provisions:
Key Legal Provisions
Penal Code, 1860
Section 295: Injuring or defiling a place of worship, or religious symbols, with intent to insult religion.
Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class.
Section 298: Uttering words intended to wound religious feelings of any person.
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006 (amended 2013)
Criminalizes online publication of material that hurts religious sentiment.
Digital posts, blogs, and social media content may fall under this provision.
Constitutional Context
Article 41: Freedom of religion.
Article 39: Freedom of speech, subject to reasonable restrictions for public order, decency, or morality.
Religious offense laws balance freedom of expression with protection of religious sentiment.
Purpose
Protect religious harmony and social peace.
Prevent provocative speech or actions that may incite communal violence.
2. Key Cases Illustrating Blasphemy and Religious Offense Prosecution
Case 1: Shah Alam vs State (1995)
Facts:
Shah Alam was accused of defacing religious texts and making offensive statements about Islam in a public gathering.
Charged under Section 295A of the Penal Code.
Judgment:
Court found that intent to outrage religious feelings was proven.
Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with fine.
Significance:
Established that malicious intent is a key element in religious offense cases.
Judicial interpretation emphasized mens rea (intent) alongside the act.
Case 2: Blogger Prosecution Case – Ahmed Rajib Haider (2013)
Facts:
A blogger was accused of publishing writings online that allegedly insulted religious beliefs.
Case initiated under ICT Act and Sections 295A & 298 of the Penal Code.
Judgment:
Court emphasized verification of digital evidence before conviction.
Some accused acquitted due to lack of proof of intent, highlighting procedural safeguards.
Significance:
Illustrated the application of blasphemy laws to digital platforms.
Showed that courts require intent and clear evidence, not merely offensive content.
Case 3: Ahmadiyya Community Case – 2001
Facts:
Some members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community faced accusations of claiming prophethood.
Local authorities filed cases under Section 298B of the Penal Code (offense against “prophets” of a religion).
Judgment:
Court ruled that prosecution must establish public dissemination and intent to insult.
Several cases dismissed due to insufficient evidence of intent to outrage.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial caution in religious offense cases.
Emphasized protection of minority religious groups under constitutional law.
Case 4: Taslima Nasrin Controversy (1990s–2000s)
Facts:
Writer Taslima Nasrin faced multiple complaints for her books criticizing religious orthodoxy.
Charged under Sections 295A and 298.
Judgment:
Courts acknowledged freedom of expression, but also upheld public order considerations.
Many cases were withdrawn or led to exile due to threats and unrest rather than criminal conviction.
Significance:
Highlighted tension between freedom of speech and religious offense laws.
Demonstrated how social context affects judicial enforcement of blasphemy laws.
Case 5: Social Media Blasphemy Case – 2017–2019
Facts:
A Facebook user posted content deemed offensive to religious sentiments.
Police filed a case under ICT Act and Penal Code Section 295A.
Judgment:
Court required technical evidence linking post to accused.
Conviction required demonstration of deliberate and malicious intent.
Significance:
Shows modern application of blasphemy and religious offense laws in online environments.
Emphasized digital forensics and authenticity of evidence in contemporary trials.
3. Key Judicial Principles in Religious Offense Cases
Intent Matters: Mere criticism or discussion is not enough; deliberate and malicious intent must be proven.
Evidence Requirements: Courts require strong, corroborated evidence, especially for online cases.
Balancing Rights: Freedom of expression (Article 39) is restricted only to protect public order and religious sentiment.
Minority Protections: Courts ensure that laws are not misused against religious minorities.
Procedural Fairness: Courts emphasize verification, chain of custody, and due process, especially in ICT-related cases.
4. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Legal Provision | Key Facts | Court Decision | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shah Alam (1995) | Penal Code 295A | Defacing religious texts, offensive statements | Convicted | Intent to outrage crucial |
| Blogger Case (2013) | ICT Act, 295A, 298 | Online writings insulting religion | Acquitted/convicted based on evidence | Digital evidence verification |
| Ahmadiyya Community (2001) | 298B | Alleged claim of prophethood | Several acquittals | Minority protection emphasized |
| Taslima Nasrin | 295A, 298 | Criticism of religious orthodoxy | Cases withdrawn or exile | Tension between expression & religion |
| Social Media Case (2017–2019) | ICT Act, 295A | Facebook posts | Conviction required proof of intent | Application of blasphemy laws in online space |
5. Conclusion
Blasphemy and religious offense laws in Bangladesh protect religious harmony but are carefully interpreted by courts to avoid abuse.
Intent and evidence are key elements for conviction.
Courts also balance freedom of expression with protection of religious sentiment, especially in digital contexts.
Judicial interpretation ensures that minority rights and due process are respected while enforcing these laws.
RELATED Blog
0 comments