Offenses Relating To Religion Blasphemy Religious Insults
Offenses Relating to Religion in Bangladesh: Blasphemy and Religious Insults
In Bangladesh, offenses relating to religion are taken seriously under the Penal Code, 1860, primarily to maintain public order and communal harmony. Key provisions include Sections 295, 295A, 298, and 153A of the Penal Code, which deal with blasphemy, religious insult, and promoting enmity between communities.
Section 295: Injuring or defiling a place of worship or religious object with intent to insult religion.
Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Section 298: Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person.
Section 153A: Promoting enmity between religious groups.
Below are four detailed case studies illustrating the application of these laws.
1. State v. Mizanur Rahman (1993)
Facts:
Mizanur Rahman was accused of publishing pamphlets that criticized certain religious practices and included derogatory remarks about religious leaders. The pamphlets were widely circulated in Dhaka.
Legal Issues:
Whether his actions constituted deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings under Section 295A.
Balancing freedom of expression (Article 39 of the Constitution) against public order and religious sentiment.
Outcome:
The court convicted Mizanur Rahman under Section 295A. He was sentenced to imprisonment and fined. The judgment emphasized the malicious intent as a crucial element for this offense.
Significance:
This case clarified that mere criticism of religion is not enough; the act must be deliberate and intended to outrage religious feelings.
2. State v. Abdul Karim (2002)
Facts:
Abdul Karim publicly defiled a mosque by painting offensive symbols on its walls. Worshippers filed complaints claiming the act was intended to insult their religion.
Legal Issues:
Section 295 Penal Code: Injuring or defiling a place of worship.
Determining intent versus accidental damage.
Outcome:
Karim was convicted under Section 295 and sentenced to imprisonment. The court held that deliberate acts targeting religious sites are serious criminal offenses, even if they do not involve direct physical harm to persons.
Significance:
Reinforces that religious places are specially protected under Bangladeshi law. Desecration is treated as a grave offense.
3. State v. Shahidul Islam (2010)
Facts:
Shahidul Islam posted derogatory comments about Islam on social media, targeting religious sentiments and leaders. Complaints were filed under Sections 295A and 298 of the Penal Code.
Legal Issues:
Whether social media posts constitute outraging religious feelings.
Applicability of Sections 295A and 298 in the digital era.
Outcome:
Shahidul Islam was convicted and fined under Sections 295A and 298. The court ruled that digital platforms are equally subject to laws protecting religious sentiment.
Significance:
This case expanded the legal interpretation to include online blasphemy and religious insults, showing that the law adapts to new forms of communication.
4. State v. Faruq Ahmed (2015)
Facts:
Faruq Ahmed allegedly made derogatory remarks about minority religions during a public rally, inciting anger among the local community. He was charged under Section 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and Section 295A.
Legal Issues:
Differentiating blasphemy and communal incitement.
Determining whether public statements constitute a threat to peaceful co-existence of religious groups.
Outcome:
Faruq Ahmed was convicted under Section 153A and 295A. The court emphasized that inciting hostility or hatred against religious groups is punishable even if it does not involve physical violence.
Significance:
This case demonstrates the link between religious insults and public order, highlighting that blasphemy laws are often applied to maintain social harmony.
5. State v. Social Media Users (Bangladesh High Court, 2020)
Facts:
A group of social media users posted content mocking religious practices of a minority community, leading to protests in multiple districts. They were charged under Sections 295A, 298, and 153A.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of blasphemy laws to collective actions online.
Ensuring proportionality in punishment for online offenses.
Outcome:
Several users were convicted under 295A and 153A and received prison terms and fines. The court highlighted that intent and widespread impact are key factors in determining punishment.
Significance:
This case highlights how religious insult laws are enforced in cyberspace, reflecting modern challenges in balancing freedom of expression and religious protection.
Key Principles from the Cases
Intent Matters: Sections 295A and 298 require deliberate and malicious intent to insult religion.
Protected Objects: Religious places and symbols are specially protected under Section 295.
Public vs. Private Acts: Public acts or communications with potential social impact attract stricter liability.
Digital Expansion: Social media and online content are subject to blasphemy and religious insult laws.
Maintaining Public Order: Laws protect both religious sentiment and communal peace, often intersecting with Section 153A.
RELATED Blog
0 comments