Offences Relating To Religion Under Ipc
Key Sections in IPC Related to Religion
Section 295 – Injuring or Defiling Place of Worship with Intent to Insult Religion
Punishment for destroying, damaging, or defiling any place of worship or sacred object with intent to insult the religion.
Section 295A – Deliberate and Malicious Acts Intended to Outrage Religious Feelings
Punishes intentional and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting religion or religious beliefs.
Section 296 – Disturbing Religious Assembly
Punishment for voluntarily disturbing any lawful religious assembly.
Section 297 – Trespassing on Burial Places, etc., with Intent to Insult
Penalizes trespassing on burial places or places of worship with intent to insult the religion.
Section 298 – Uttering Words with Intent to Wound Religious Feelings
Punishes words, sounds, or gestures intended to wound religious feelings.
Section 153A – Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups on Grounds of Religion, Race, etc.
Criminalizes acts promoting disharmony or feelings of enmity between different religious groups.
Detailed Case Laws
1. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957) AIR 621
Facts: The accused published a book containing statements insulting to Hindu religious beliefs.
Issue: Whether the accused's act amounted to an offence under Section 295A IPC.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that Section 295A punishes only deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. The accused’s intention was to discuss religion, not to insult, so he was acquitted.
Significance: Established the need to prove malicious intention to constitute offence under Section 295A.
2. T. Varghese v. The Rev. Father (1987) 4 SCC 280
Facts: A person was accused of making statements that outraged the religious feelings of Christians.
Issue: Whether such statements were protected under freedom of speech or amounted to offence under Section 295A.
Holding: The Supreme Court emphasized the balance between freedom of speech and protection of religious feelings. It upheld that deliberate and malicious intent must be proven to convict under Section 295A.
3. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600
Facts: Actress Khushboo made comments about pre-marital sex that were alleged to offend religious sentiments.
Issue: Whether the comments constituted an offence under Section 295A or 153A.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of freedom of speech and expression and held that statements made without deliberate intention to outrage religious feelings do not attract penal provisions. The court emphasized context and intention.
4. Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Union of India (1987) AIR 2062
Facts: The case dealt with communal riots and the role of inflammatory speeches.
Issue: Applicability of Section 153A to prevent communal disharmony.
Holding: The Court observed that Section 153A is a valid restriction on freedom of speech aimed at preventing public disorder and enmity between religious groups.
Significance: Affirmed the importance of Section 153A in preserving communal harmony.
5. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
Facts: The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Sections 295A and 153A as restrictions on freedom of speech.
Issue: Whether Sections 295A and 153A violate fundamental rights.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld these sections as constitutionally valid restrictions that protect religious harmony and prevent hate speech.
Significance: Confirmed the balance between free speech and religious protection laws.
6. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360
Facts: The case involved demolition of Babri Masjid and communal tensions.
Issue: Role of law enforcement and application of Sections 295, 295A, and 153A in controlling religious offences.
Holding: The Court emphasized strict enforcement of these sections to prevent communal disharmony.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Ramji Lal Modi (1957) | Malicious intention under 295A | Intent must be proven for conviction |
| T. Varghese (1987) | Balancing free speech & religion | Malicious intent required for offence |
| Khushboo (2010) | Freedom of speech vs offending sentiments | No offence without deliberate intent |
| Iqbal Singh Marwah (1987) | Role of 153A in communal harmony | Valid restriction to prevent religious enmity |
| Subramanian Swamy (2016) | Constitutionality of 295A, 153A | Sections upheld as valid restrictions |
| M. Ismail Faruqui (1994) | Enforcement in communal cases | Emphasized strict enforcement to maintain harmony |
Conclusion
IPC provides strict provisions to protect religious sentiments and maintain communal harmony.
Courts consistently emphasize the requirement of deliberate and malicious intention for conviction under Sections like 295A.
Freedom of speech is balanced against the need to protect religious feelings and prevent hate speech.
Sections 153A and related provisions are critical in curbing communal disharmony and incitement.
Legal precedents reinforce the constitutional validity of these provisions while safeguarding legitimate expression.
RELATED Blog
0 comments