Religiously Motivated Offences
1. Ziauddin Ahmed v. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 1691
Subject: Communal violence and incitement
Facts:
The accused was charged with provoking communal violence through inflammatory speeches.
Violence erupted targeting a religious community.
Judicial Principles:
Supreme Court emphasized Section 153A IPC (promoting enmity between groups).
Court held that speech or acts intended to incite religious hatred are punishable, even if no actual violence occurs.
Interpretation:
Intent and effect are key: promoting enmity or ill-will between religious groups is sufficient.
Importance:
Established that communal harmony is a legal obligation and incitement is criminal.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam, (2003) 8 SCC 237
Subject: Religious riots and mass violence
Facts:
Accused participated in religious riots leading to deaths and destruction of property.
Judicial Principles:
The Court held that Section 302 IPC (murder), 307 IPC (attempt to murder), and Sections 147–149 IPC (rioting) apply even in communal contexts.
Emphasized punishment is aggravated if motive is communal, citing Section 153A IPC.
Interpretation:
Religious motive is an aggravating factor, affecting both sentencing and preventive measures.
Importance:
Clarified that communal motive intensifies liability under Indian Penal Code.
3. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360
Subject: Protection of religious places and communal tension
Facts:
Case arose from dispute over a mosque and temple land, leading to communal tension.
Judicial Principles:
Supreme Court held that state must ensure secularism and communal harmony.
Destruction or encroachment of religious places intended to provoke tension is illegal.
Interpretation:
The Court balanced religious rights under Articles 25 and 26 with public order under Article 25(2)(b).
Secular governance allows restriction of religious practices if public order is threatened.
Importance:
Set precedent that religious freedom cannot override public order and communal peace.
4. D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
Subject: Custodial torture and minority protection
Facts:
Though primarily about custodial safeguards, the case involved minorities arrested during communal riots.
Judicial Principles:
Supreme Court laid down mandatory safeguards to prevent custodial abuse.
Ensured religiously motivated offences do not result in arbitrary state action.
Interpretation:
Religious identity of accused or victim must not influence police conduct or evidence collection.
Importance:
Reinforced state accountability during communal crises.
5. Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884
Subject: Desecration of religious places
Facts:
Accused damaged a temple in a religiously motivated act.
Judicial Principles:
Supreme Court held that Sections 295 and 295A IPC (injuring or defiling religious places with intent to insult) are strictly enforceable.
Mens rea (intent) is crucial: proving intent to insult a religious group is essential.
Interpretation:
Protection of religious sentiment is a constitutional and statutory mandate.
Importance:
Provides legal framework for prosecuting religiously motivated vandalism.
6. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945 (Indirectly related to communal harmony)
Facts:
Case involved maintenance rights for divorced Muslim women, sparking communal debate.
Judicial Principles:
Court emphasized rule of law and equality over religious customs.
Any religiously motivated unrest must be addressed by law, not by community action.
Interpretation:
Reinforced that religious sentiment cannot override fundamental rights or legal obligations.
Importance:
Landmark in showing judicial intervention in religiously sensitive matters.
7. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 7 SCC 329
Subject: Communal rioting and mob violence
Facts:
Rioters attacked a religious minority community during a festival.
Judicial Principles:
Court held that prosecution under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC is valid.
Religious motive aggravates punishment.
Courts also stressed compensation for victims under Section 357 CrPC.
Interpretation:
Liability extends even to those indirectly participating, like mob leaders or instigators.
Importance:
Reinforced strict accountability in religiously motivated mass violence.
Key Legal Provisions Governing Religiously Motivated Offences
IPC Sections 153A & 153B – Promoting enmity between groups.
IPC Sections 295, 295A, 298 – Injuring or defiling religious objects or places.
IPC Sections 147–149, 302, 307 – Rioting, murder, or attempt to murder with religious intent.
CrPC Sections 125 & 357 – Compensation for victims of religiously motivated crimes.
Constitutional safeguards – Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26 for equality, non-discrimination, and religious freedom.
Judicial Principles Derived from These Cases
Intent is crucial – Religious motive must be proven for aggravated sentencing.
Communal harmony is a constitutional priority – Law punishes acts disturbing public order.
Religious rights have limits – No religious practice can violate law or threaten public order.
State accountability is key – Police and administrative authorities must act neutrally.
Protection of minorities – Courts ensure minorities are not targeted or discriminated against.
Victim compensation – Law provides monetary remedies for harm caused by religiously motivated crimes.
Conclusion
Religiously motivated offences in India are treated seriously due to their potential to disrupt public order and communal harmony. Indian courts have consistently:
Interpreted statutory provisions strictly (Sections 153A, 295 IPC)
Emphasized intent and motive
Ensured protection of victims and minority communities
Balanced religious freedom with public order
RELATED Blog
0 comments