Promoting Enmity Between Religious Groups
🔹 Legal Provisions Under Indian Law
Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Essence: This section criminalizes acts that promote enmity between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years or with fine, or both. If committed in a place of worship or religious ceremony, punishment can extend to 5 years.
Section 295A IPC
Pertains to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Used in conjunction with Section 153A in many cases.
🔍 Key Ingredients of Section 153A IPC:
Promotion of enmity between different groups.
On grounds such as religion, race, etc.
Acts must be intentional and with malicious purpose.
Likely to disturb public tranquility or incite violence.
📚 Case Law Analysis
✅ 1. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 7 SCC 431
Facts:
The accused, a journalist, published articles that were alleged to promote communal hatred between Hindus and Muslims during the Bombay riots.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused. It held that the mere discussion or reporting of communal issues does not automatically amount to promoting enmity. The prosecution failed to prove deliberate intention or malice.
Significance:
Established that intent is crucial under Section 153A. Media must act responsibly but has a right to free expression unless malice is proved.
✅ 2. Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
The case involved a novel titled "Muslim Tatha Hindu", which allegedly promoted enmity. FIR was registered under Section 153A IPC.
Judgment:
The Court quashed the FIR and emphasized the importance of literary freedom. It stated that intent and incitement are the cornerstones of this offense. The book was fictional and did not promote enmity in a real sense.
Significance:
Reinforced the idea that literary and artistic works must not be targeted unless a clear link to incitement or enmity is present.
✅ 3. State of Karnataka v. Dr. Pravin Togadia (2004) (Unreported SC Judgment)
Facts:
Dr. Togadia, a political figure, was accused of making speeches that allegedly incited communal hatred.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court allowed the prosecution to proceed and emphasized that public figures must be held accountable when their speeches threaten public peace and promote hatred.
Significance:
Marked a shift toward accountability of political/religious leaders and clarified that freedom of speech is not absolute when it endangers communal harmony.
✅ 4. Faisal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad High Court, 2021)
Facts:
The accused was charged under Section 153A for a Facebook post allegedly promoting enmity between religious groups.
Judgment:
The High Court quashed the proceedings, observing that the post was critical of government policies and not targeted against any religious community.
Significance:
Reiterated that criticism of government or policies does not amount to promoting religious enmity unless there is clear incitement or targeting of a religious group.
✅ 5. Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) 1 SCC 1
Facts:
Amish Devgan, a TV anchor, referred to a Sufi saint as an "invader" during a televised debate, leading to nationwide FIRs under Sections 153A and 295A.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court refused to quash the FIRs, noting that public figures have a higher duty of caution. The Court stated that such remarks could provoke communal hatred, and investigation was warranted.
Significance:
Set precedent that televised statements by influential personalities must be carefully weighed, and unintentional offense can still be investigated if public tranquility is disturbed.
⚖️ Summary Table of Key Principles
| Principle | Source Case | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Intent is key | Bilal Ahmed Kaloo | Without deliberate intention, Section 153A cannot be applied. |
| Freedom of expression protected | Manzar Sayeed Khan | Artistic works are not punishable unless they clearly incite hatred. |
| Public figures have higher responsibility | Dr. Pravin Togadia / Amish Devgan | Leaders and media personalities must avoid statements that may incite enmity. |
| Criticism ≠ Enmity | Faisal v. State | Criticism of government is not the same as religious hate speech. |
| Context matters | All cases | The overall context, audience, and platform must be considered in determining whether an act promotes enmity. |
📝 Conclusion
Section 153A IPC serves as a crucial tool to preserve communal harmony and public order. However, courts have consistently held that it must be interpreted cautiously to ensure that it does not infringe on the right to free speech and expression. The balance between freedom and responsibility is the central theme in all major judgments related to promoting enmity between religious groups.
RELATED Blog
0 comments