BLASPHEMY VS HATE SPEECH
The legality of section 295(A) was affirmed by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The court said that the punishment under section 295(A) deals with an aggravated form of blasphemy which is committed with the malicious aim of offending any religious sensibilities.
Blasphemy laws which prohibit religious criticism, in general, are incompatible with the principles of a democratic society.
WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF SECTION 295 (A)?
- As far as laws in India go, there isn’t formal legislation against blasphemy. The closet equivalent to a blasphemy law is section 295(A) of the Indian Penal code, which punishes any speech, writings, or signs that “with premeditated and malicious intent” insult citizens' religion or religious beliefs with a fine and imprisonment for up to three years.
- The history of section 295(A) of the IPC can be traced back 95 years. In 1927, a satire was published which had obscene parallels to the Prophet’s personal life. Erstwhile High court of Lahore observed that the author of this cannot be prosecuted as the writing did not cause animosity or hostility between any communities. Thus the offence did not fall under section 153 (A), which dealt with maintaining public tranquillity/order.
- However, this incident gave rise to a demand that there be a law to protect the sanctity of religions, and thus, section 295(A) was introduced.
- The legality of section295 (A), which had been challenged in the Ramji Lal Modi Case (1957), was affirmed by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
- The apex court reasoned that while Article 19(2) allows reasonable limits on freedom of speech and expression for the sake of public order, the punishment under section 295(A) deals with the aggravated form of blasphemy which is committed with the malicious aim of offending the religious sensibilities of any class.
LEGISLATION INTERPRETATION
CASE-SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, FATEHGARH VS RAM MANOHAR LOHIA-supreme court stated that the link between the speech spoken and any public order caused as a result of it should have a close relationship for retrieving section 295 (A) of IPC.
By 2011, it concluded that only speech that amounts to “incitement to impending unlawful action can be punished.
BLASPHEMY LAWS VS HATE SPEECH LAWS
Hate speech-criticizing or ridiculing religion and encouraging prejudice or aggression towards individuals or a community because of their faith.
It cannot be stated that deliberate disrespect to religion or religious sensibilities is necessarily tantamount to incitement.
The Supreme Court has said on several occasions that perhaps the goal of hate speech statutes in section 295(A) is to prevent prejudice and ensure equality
HATE SPEECH CASES
- As per the data given by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there has been a huge increase in cases registered to promote hate speech and foster animosity in society.
- While there were only 323 cases registered in 2014, it had increased to 1804 cases in 2020. However; this can also be due to the steep turns in the dynamic of our current society.
- Section 295(A) is now usually used to penalize religious dissent, satire and any comedic content with religious references.
- Bogus cases of 295 (A) have been launched on certain web series like Tandav, which reportedly offended religious emotions. According to the filed FIR, the series purposely presents Hindu gods in a demeaning manner.
- There have been incidents where citizens performing standup comedy have been arrested only because they had religious references in their script.
- The inadequacies of the rules of free speech are further exemplified in the cases of Mohammad Zubair and Nupur Sharma.
- These cases show how regulations don’t draw a line between criticism and premeditated hate speech. Failing to articulate these distinctions diminishes fair use of the section and makes it more difficult to define and penalize the actual crime of hate speech.
HOW SHOULD ONE DEAL WITH INCIDENTS OF BLASPHEMY
Blasphemy laws which prohibit religious criticism, in general, are incompatible with the principles of a democratic society. The only feasible solutions that stand on the thin line of protection of faith and questioning hate speech should be keeping blasphemy in the statutes but de-criminalizing it.
