Religiously Motivated Offences
Religiously Motivated Offences
Definition:
Religiously motivated offences refer to crimes committed with the primary intention of insulting, harming, or intimidating individuals or groups based on their religion. These offences can range from hate speech, communal riots, desecration of religious symbols, to targeted violence.
Legal Framework in India:
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 295: Injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion.
Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Section 298: Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.
Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different religious groups.
Section 505: Statements creating fear or alarm against religious groups.
Prevention of Communal Violence Act (State-specific laws, e.g., 2005 Gujarat)
Provides measures for prevention and punishment of communal riots and religious violence.
Key Principles:
Intent is crucial — the act must be done deliberately or maliciously.
Protection of public order and religious harmony is the primary goal.
Evidence can include speeches, writings, social media posts, or actions.
Case Laws on Religiously Motivated Offences
1. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957)
Facts: Accused distributed pamphlets containing derogatory statements about a religion.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that Section 295A IPC requires deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.
Significance: Established mens rea (intent) as essential for conviction in religious offences.
2. T. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991)
Facts: Officials made statements inciting religious tensions.
Judgment: Court held that public officials can be prosecuted under Sections 153A and 505 IPC for promoting communal disharmony.
Significance: Demonstrated that religiously motivated offences are punishable even if committed by public servants.
3. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2001) – Hate Speech Case
Facts: Accused delivered speeches intending to incite enmity between religious groups.
Judgment: Court convicted under Section 153A IPC, noting that speech aimed at stirring religious violence is criminal.
Significance: Reinforced that verbal incitement is punishable even if no actual violence occurs.
4. K.K. Verma v. State of Punjab (2005)
Facts: Accused desecrated a place of worship and posted images on social media.
Judgment: Convicted under Sections 295 and 295A IPC, with emphasis on public outrage and intent.
Significance: Expanded the scope of religious offences to include digital platforms.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Shabbir (2007)
Facts: Communal riots occurred following inflammatory writings.
Judgment: Court held that planning, writing, or distributing inflammatory content can constitute religiously motivated offences under Sections 153A and 295A IPC.
Significance: Clarified the link between incitement and communal violence.
6. Mohammad Salim v. State of Kerala (2012)
Facts: Accused posted derogatory comments online targeting a religious community.
Judgment: Convicted under Section 66A IT Act (struck down later) and Sections 295A/505 IPC); court emphasized that digital posts inciting religious hatred are punishable.
Significance: Applied religious offence laws to online/digital platforms.
7. State of Gujarat v. Natwar H. Patel (2015)
Facts: Accused involved in organizing communal violence in a religious procession.
Judgment: Court applied Sections 153A and 295 IPC, noting that planning and incitement constitute criminal liability.
Significance: Highlighted organizational and premeditated religious offences.
Key Principles from These Cases
Intent Matters: Deliberate and malicious intent is necessary for Sections 295A/153A convictions.
Public Order: Actions that threaten communal harmony attract strict penalties.
Verbal, Written, and Digital Forms: All forms of communication can constitute religious offences.
Public Officials Included: Officials can be prosecuted if they incite or promote religious hatred.
Link to Violence: Planning or incitement leading to riots or public disorder increases severity of punishment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments