Blasphemy Versus Free Speech In India
1. Legal Framework in India
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
However, Article 19(2) allows the State to impose "reasonable restrictions" on this right in the interests of:
Sovereignty and integrity of India
Security of the State
Friendly relations with foreign States
Public order
Decency or morality
Contempt of court
Defamation
Incitement to an offense
Sections 295A, 153A, and 298 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are often used to prosecute blasphemy or hate speech:
Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
Section 298: Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.
2. Tension Between Blasphemy and Free Speech
India is a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multilingual democracy, where speech touching on religion is sensitive. Courts have tried to balance:
The right of individuals and communities to freely express ideas (including criticism of religion or religious figures),
With the need to protect communal harmony and prevent violence or hatred,
And to avoid malicious insults that provoke hostility or breach of peace.
3. Landmark Cases Explaining the Balance
Case 1: Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957)
Facts:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 295A IPC, which criminalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Legal Issue:
Is Section 295A violative of Article 19(1)(a) or a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)?
Holding:
The court held that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute and that reasonable restrictions can be imposed to protect religious feelings. Section 295A was declared constitutionally valid because it punishes only deliberate and malicious acts meant to outrage religious feelings, not fair or reasonable criticism.
Significance:
This case is foundational in upholding laws against blasphemy as a reasonable restriction on free speech to maintain public order.
Case 2: K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1971)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the ban on a film that allegedly hurt religious sentiments.
Legal Issue:
How far does the freedom of expression protect speech that may offend religious sentiments?
Holding:
The Supreme Court stated that free speech includes right to criticise or oppose, but it does not include the right to outrage religious feelings or to indulge in hate speech. The court emphasized that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.
Significance:
Affirms the state's power to restrict speech offending religious sentiments, but does not suppress fair criticism.
Case 3: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized offensive online speech, including that which could hurt religious feelings.
Legal Issue:
Is Section 66A a constitutionally valid restriction on free speech?
Holding:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as vague and overbroad, holding that restrictions on speech must be narrowly defined and must not curb legitimate free expression. The court reiterated that expression that hurts religious feelings is not per se prohibited, but must meet the test of causing public disorder or incitement.
Significance:
Clarified that offensive or hurtful speech alone cannot be banned unless it incites violence or public disorder — narrowing scope of blasphemy/hate speech laws.
Case 4: In Re: Praveen Togadia (2013) (Gujarat HC)
Facts:
The petitioner was charged under Section 295A for statements allegedly insulting religious beliefs.
Legal Issue:
Whether the statements were protected free speech or punishable blasphemy.
Holding:
The court held that mere criticism or expression of opinion about religion is protected. However, statements made with deliberate intent to insult or outrage religious feelings fall within the scope of Section 295A.
Significance:
Reaffirms the necessity of malicious intention for blasphemy convictions and protects genuine criticism.
Case 5: Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the use of Section 295A against him for alleged criticism of religious practice.
Legal Issue:
Does criticism of religious practices amount to an offense under blasphemy laws?
Holding:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere criticism of religious beliefs or practices cannot be criminalized unless it is done with deliberate intention to outrage feelings or incite public disorder.
Significance:
Highlights the difference between free criticism and malicious insult — the former is protected, the latter punishable.
4. Summary of the Legal Position in India
Freedom of speech is guaranteed but not absolute.
Laws against blasphemy (Section 295A IPC) punish deliberate and malicious acts aimed at outraging religious feelings.
Mere criticism of religion, expression of opinion, or even offensive speech is often protected unless it crosses the threshold of malice and incitement to violence or public disorder.
Courts require proof of intention or malice for conviction.
Overly broad or vague restrictions are struck down (e.g., Shreya Singhal case).
The State balances communal harmony and public order with individual rights.
5. Practical implications
People can critique religion or religious practices without fear of prosecution, so long as it is not malicious.
Hate speech or calls for violence against any religion or community are prosecutable.
The law attempts to prevent speech that would incite violence or communal disharmony.
However, there is criticism that blasphemy laws can be misused to suppress dissent or minority opinions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments