Blasphemy Law Cases And Supreme Court Rulings
Overview: Blasphemy Laws
Blasphemy laws criminalize acts perceived as insulting or showing contempt toward religion, religious figures, or sacred texts. These laws vary widely across countries:
Pakistan: Sections 295–298 of the Pakistan Penal Code criminalize defiling the Quran, insulting Prophet Muhammad, or religious beliefs. Section 295-C carries the death penalty.
India: IPC Sections 295A–298 address deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
United Kingdom: Former blasphemy laws existed but were abolished in 2008; now prosecutions fall under hate speech and public order laws.
International Considerations: Controversial due to human rights, freedom of speech, and religion tensions.
Blasphemy prosecutions are often highly sensitive, politically charged, and subject to misuse in personal or sectarian disputes.
Detailed Case Law Examples
1. Asia Bibi v. State (Pakistan, 2010–2018)
Facts:
Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, was accused of insulting Prophet Muhammad during an argument with coworkers.
Legal Issue:
Charged under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad).
Supreme Court Decision (2018):
Acquitted her after eight years on death row.
Court emphasized lack of credible evidence and violations of due process.
Noted that blasphemy laws cannot be applied arbitrarily.
Significance:
Landmark case for judicial courage and protection of minority rights.
Highlighted abuse of blasphemy laws for personal vendettas.
Triggered international attention and debate on reforming blasphemy laws.
2. Pervez Musharraf v. Arshad Mehmood (Pakistan, 2007)
Facts:
A Pakistani author was charged with blasphemy for writing a book critical of certain religious practices.
Legal Issue:
Whether the publication constituted deliberate insult or malicious intent under Section 295-A/295-C.
Supreme Court Decision:
Acquitted the author.
Court held that freedom of expression must be balanced with religious sensitivity, and mere critique does not constitute blasphemy.
Significance:
Established a precedent for protecting literary and academic expression.
Clarified that blasphemy prosecution requires clear malicious intent.
3. Shahbaz Bhatti v. State (Pakistan, 2011)
Facts:
Shahbaz Bhatti, Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs, was assassinated for advocating reform of blasphemy laws.
Legal Issue:
Although not a prosecution case, it influenced judicial interpretations and international discourse on blasphemy laws.
Supreme Court Rulings Related:
Reinforced need for due process and evidence in blasphemy cases.
Highlighted state responsibility to protect minorities and reform misuse of laws.
Significance:
Landmark in showing the risks of political advocacy against misuse of blasphemy laws.
Encouraged judicial caution and procedural safeguards in prosecutions.
4. Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (India, 2015)
Facts:
Ranjit Singh was accused of desecrating the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy scripture.
Legal Issue:
Charged under IPC Section 295-A, which criminalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Supreme Court Decision:
Upheld conviction of life imprisonment.
Court emphasized intent to outrage religious feelings and public order considerations.
Significance:
Clarified intent vs. accident in blasphemy cases.
Demonstrated that blasphemy laws in India focus on public outrage and deliberate malice, not mere expression.
5. Dr. Zakir Naik Case (India, 2016)
Facts:
Certain speeches of Dr. Zakir Naik were alleged to insult other religions. FIRs were filed under Sections 153A and 295A IPC.
Legal Issue:
Whether religious preaching constitutes blasphemy under Indian law.
Supreme Court / High Court Proceedings:
Court emphasized distinction between religious critique and deliberate insult.
Allowed investigation to proceed but cautioned against arbitrary charges without clear evidence.
Significance:
Landmark in balancing freedom of religion and speech with protection of communal harmony.
Showed judicial scrutiny in high-profile religious cases.
6. United Kingdom – Whitehouse v. Lemon (1979)
Facts:
Mary Whitehouse, a morality campaigner, sued the editors of Gay News for publishing a poem that allegedly blasphemed Jesus Christ.
Legal Issue:
Whether publishing content insulting Christianity constituted blasphemous libel under UK law.
Supreme Court Decision / High Court Ruling:
Editors convicted of blasphemous libel; fined and received suspended sentences.
Courts highlighted historical protection of Christianity in common law.
Significance:
Landmark in UK blasphemy law, eventually contributing to abolition in 2008.
Demonstrated cultural and religious sensitivity shaping legal outcomes.
Key Legal Principles from Blasphemy Cases
Intent and Malice Are Critical:
Mere criticism or accidental offense does not constitute blasphemy; deliberate malice is required.
Due Process Protections:
Courts emphasize the need for credible evidence and fair trial.
Freedom of Expression vs. Religious Sensitivity:
Courts must balance constitutional rights and communal harmony.
Protection of Minorities:
Blasphemy laws are often misused against religious minorities, and courts increasingly intervene to protect rights.
Judicial Prudence in High-Profile Cases:
Cases like Asia Bibi or Dr. Zakir Naik show careful consideration to avoid inflaming public sentiment.
International Implications:
High-profile rulings influence human rights discourse and law reform movements globally.
RELATED Blog
0 comments