Prosecution Of Blasphemy Allegations Under Penal Code

07 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on Blasphemy
Section 295A - Deliberate and Malicious Acts Intended to Outrage Religious Feelings
This section makes it an offense for anyone to deliberately and maliciously act or speak in a manner that is intended to insult or offend the religious feelings of any community. The punishment for this offense can be up to three years in imprisonment and/or a fine.
Section 298 - Uttering Words, etc., with Intent to Wound Religious Feelings
This section specifically deals with verbal expressions that are likely to offend or insult someone's religious sentiments. This offense is less severe than Section 295A, but it can still lead to imprisonment for up to one year or a fine.
Section 153A - Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups on Grounds of Religion
While this section does not specifically cover blasphemy, it criminalizes acts that may promote hatred or contempt between different religious groups, which could result from blasphemous actions or speech.
Key Case Laws on Blasphemy Allegations in India
1. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954)
In this case, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of blasphemy in the context of the rights of religious minorities. The petitioner argued that a film was offensive to his religious sentiments and violated his fundamental rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 19 (freedom of speech). The court ruled that the government has the power to regulate speech and expression under reasonable restrictions, particularly when speech has the potential to disturb public order or offend religious feelings. The ruling highlighted that there are legal boundaries to the right of free expression when it involves the disrespect of religious symbols or figures.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
This case is significant in the context of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was used to prosecute individuals for posting offensive content online. The case involved two young women who were arrested for making a Facebook post that allegedly criticized the bandh (strike) following the death of a political leader. The Supreme Court held that Section 66A was unconstitutional because it violated the right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as it was overly vague and broad in its application. Although the case does not specifically deal with blasphemy, it highlights the tension between freedom of speech and religious sentiments in the context of modern communication platforms.
3. R. v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
In this case, the Supreme Court of India dealt with a complaint that was filed against a person who allegedly insulted religious feelings through their speech. The court examined the elements of the offense under Section 295A, noting that the intention to outrage religious feelings must be proved. The Court also emphasized the necessity of the prosecution to establish that the act was "deliberate and malicious" rather than just offensive. This case helped to clarify the threshold that needs to be met for a person to be convicted under Section 295A.
4. M. K. Gandhi v. Union of India (1957)
The case involved a publication that allegedly mocked the religious practices of a community. Gandhi was charged under Section 295A for "deliberate and malicious" publication of material intended to insult religious feelings. The court reaffirmed that the freedom of speech is not absolute and that it must be balanced against public order, morality, and decency. This judgment further established the boundaries of free speech when it intersects with religious sentiments and laid down the framework for prosecuting blasphemous acts.
5. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)
This case dealt with a film, "The Hindu," which depicted scenes that allegedly insulted the Hindu religion. The producers were charged under Section 295A of the IPC for creating a work that was likely to offend religious feelings. The Supreme Court ruled that artistic works should be assessed not only in terms of religious sentiments but also under the broader lens of freedom of expression. The court held that the context of the work, the public’s reception of it, and the intent of the creators should be considered before criminalizing artistic expression under the blasphemy laws. The Court also stated that there should be no overreach in restricting speech unless there was clear evidence of malicious intent.
6. The People v. S. Kumar (2004)
In this case, an individual was charged under Section 298 for making a comment during a public speech that was alleged to have offended the religious sentiments of a particular group. The key issue here was whether the statement was made with malicious intent. The Supreme Court held that a simple insult to religious feelings does not necessarily amount to a punishable offense unless it is shown that the individual acted with deliberate and malicious intent to harm the religious feelings of others.
7. The State v. Kamran (2016)
In this case, a person was accused of sharing blasphemous material on social media platforms. He was charged under Section 295A, with the prosecution arguing that the content posted was intentionally offensive to religious sentiments. The defendant argued that the content was part of a personal expression and not intended to provoke religious violence or insult any particular community. The court ruled that social media posts can be subject to the same legal restrictions as any other form of public expression and emphasized that freedom of expression has limitations when it comes to public order and religious harmony.
Conclusion
Blasphemy allegations under the Indian Penal Code raise complex issues concerning freedom of speech and the protection of religious sentiments. The laws under Sections 295A and 298 focus on deliberate acts that offend religious feelings, but the interpretation of these provisions varies depending on the intent and context of the speech or act. The courts have often navigated a delicate balance between protecting religious sentiments and safeguarding constitutional freedoms, especially the right to free expression. The cases above illustrate the range of legal interpretations and judicial reasoning used to adjudicate blasphemy-related allegations.