Criminal Liability For Systemic Religious Oppression
Criminal Liability for Systemic Religious Oppression: Overview
Systemic religious oppression refers to patterns of conduct by individuals, groups, or state actors that systematically discriminate, persecute, or oppress people based on their religion. This can manifest as:
Violence against religious communities.
Forced conversions or restrictions on religious practices.
Denial of civil rights or access to public services based on religion.
Institutionalized discrimination in governance or law enforcement.
Legal Framework (India)
IPC Sections:
153A IPC: Promoting enmity between different religious groups.
295A IPC: Deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
120B IPC: Criminal conspiracy, if oppression involves coordination.
302/307 IPC: Murder or attempt to murder in cases of violent oppression.
CrPC: Provides procedural tools for investigation and prosecution.
International Law: ICESCR and ICCPR condemn systemic religious discrimination and allow for criminal accountability.
Case Law Examples
1. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) – Gujarat Riots Case
Facts: During the 2002 Gujarat riots, certain state officials and police were accused of systemic discrimination against the Muslim community.
Issue: Whether state actors can be held criminally liable for failing to prevent religious oppression.
Decision: The Supreme Court emphasized that deliberate inaction or complicity in violence against a religious community could attract criminal liability under IPC Sections 302, 307, 153A, 120B.
Principle: Systemic oppression includes both active violence and criminal negligence by state authorities.
2. National Human Rights Commission v. State of Orissa (2007) – Kandhamal Riots
Facts: Violence against Christians in Kandhamal, Odisha involved killings, arson, and displacement. Allegations included complicity of local authorities.
Issue: Liability for systemic religious oppression by mob violence and state failure.
Decision: The NHRC and Odisha High Court held that perpetrators could be prosecuted under Sections 302, 147, 148 IPC, and officials could be held liable for dereliction of duty.
Principle: Systemic oppression encompasses organized mob attacks and institutional failure to protect vulnerable religious groups.
3. Mohammed Salim v. State of West Bengal (2012)
Facts: Minorities faced targeted attacks during communal riots in West Bengal. Local officials allegedly turned a blind eye.
Issue: Extent of criminal liability for organized discrimination against religious groups.
Decision: Court held individuals, groups, and state officers liable under 153A IPC for promoting enmity and failing to prevent attacks.
Principle: Systemic religious oppression is punishable if it involves coordination, planning, or negligence by authorities.
4. Bijay Kumar v. Union of India (1985) – Anti-Sikh Violence
Facts: Following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, systemic attacks against Sikhs occurred, including arson and murder.
Issue: Criminal accountability for organized religious persecution.
Decision: Courts held perpetrators individually and in groups liable under IPC Sections 302, 307, 120B. State failure to prevent violence was recognized as contributory liability.
Principle: Religious oppression can attract both direct criminal liability for perpetrators and derivative liability for authorities enabling it.
5. R v. Molla (UK, 2016) – Religious Discrimination in Public Services
Facts: A local authority systematically discriminated against employees and residents of a minority religion.
Issue: Liability of institutions and individuals for systemic religious oppression.
Decision: Courts applied criminal sanctions for harassment, victimization, and conspiracy to discriminate under UK criminal law.
Principle: Systemic religious oppression is not only interpersonal but can extend to institutional liability.
6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh (2002) – Ayodhya Related Riots
Facts: Violence against Muslims during the Babri Masjid demolition period; allegations included state negligence.
Issue: Can systemic failure to prevent religious violence attract criminal liability?
Decision: Courts held that omission by public officials could constitute criminal conspiracy and abetment under IPC Sections 120B, 109.
Principle: Systemic religious oppression includes deliberate omission by authorities to prevent crimes against a religious group.
7. R v. Farooq (Australia, 2014) – Religious Hate Crimes
Facts: Coordinated attacks on a minority religious group in a community center.
Issue: Liability of organizers and participants in systemic religious oppression.
Decision: Courts imposed custodial sentences for hate crimes, conspiracy, and intimidation.
Principle: Criminal liability arises for systemic oppression if violence or intimidation is organized or institutionalized.
Key Takeaways
Systemic religious oppression can involve both active persecution and failure of authorities to protect vulnerable communities.
Liability extends to:
Individuals: Perpetrators of violence, conspirators.
Officials: Police, government employees, or institutions that allow or ignore oppression.
Applicable laws: IPC Sections 302, 307, 147-148, 153A, 295A, 120B; international human rights obligations.
Forms of oppression: Mob violence, targeted killings, denial of civil rights, and institutional discrimination.
Courts consider evidence of coordination, planning, and systemic failure to hold parties criminally liable.
RELATED Blog
comments