HATE SPEECH
2.SECTION 295A AND OTHERS
- Section 295 A defines and prescribes punishment for deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
- Whoever with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious belief of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both
- Section 295 A is one of the key provisions in the IPC chapter to penalize religious offences. The chapter includes offences to penalize damage or defilement of a place of worship with intent to insult the religion (section 295), trespassing in a place of sepulture(section 297), uttering words, etc with deliberate intent to wound the religious feeling of any person (section 298), and disturbing a religious assembly(section296)
- Section 295A has been invoked on a wide range of issues from penalizing political satire and seeking bans on or withdrawal of books to even political critique on social media.
- The state often invokes section 295A along with section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalizes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and section 505 of the IPC that punishes statements conducting to public mischief.
- In cases where such speed is online section 66A of the Information Technology Act that punishes sending offensive messages through communication services is added.
- In a landmark verdict in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down section 66A as unconstitutional on the ground that the provision was vague and a violation of free speech, however, the provision continues to be invoked.
3.ORIGINS OF LAW
- First Indian Law Commission headed by T B Macaulay who drafted the Indian Penal Code, had written to the Governor-General of India in 1835 that there is perhaps no country in which the government has so much to apprehend from religious excitement among the people. Section 295A was brought in 1927.
- In his book Offended, Shock or Disturb, lawyer Gautam Bhatia writes that the antecedents of section 295 A lie in the communally charged atmosphere of North India in the 1920s.The amendment was a fallout of an acquittal under section 153 A of the IPC by the Lahore High Court in 1927 in Rajpaul vs Emperor popularly known as the Rangila Rasool Case.
|
This was a tract brought by a Hindu publisher that has made disparaging remarks about the prophet’s private life. Cases against the first pamphlet filed under section 153A were dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High court, which examined the question of whether targeting religious figures is different from targeting religions.
When a second similar piece was published it raised tension. While the magistrate had convicted the publisher Rajpal under section 153A This prompted the colonial government to enact section 295A with a wide scope to address this issue |
5.CASES RELATED TO IPC SECTION 295A
5.1.RAMJILAL MODI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1957- the constitutionality of section 295 A was challenged; The Supreme Court upheld the law on the grounds that it was brought in to preserve’ Public order’. Public order is an exemption to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to religion recognized by the constitution.
5.2.BABA KHALIL AHMED VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1960-Supreme court said that the ‘malicious intent” of the accused can be determined not just from the speech in question but also from external sources.
5.3.RAM LAL PURI VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1973- THE Supreme court said the test to be applied is whether the speech in question offends the “ordinary man of common sense “ and not the “hypersensitive man”
5.4.BARAGUR RAMACHANDRAPPA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA2007-decision of the Supreme court “a pragmatic approach” was invoked in interpreting section 295A. The state government had issued a notification banning Dharmakaarana, a Kannada novel written by award-winning author PV Narayana on the ground that it was hate speech, invoking a gamut of provisions including section 295A. The pragmatic approach was to restore public order by “forfeiture” of a book over the individual interest of free speech.
|
For Prelims: Article 259, Hate Speech, origins of the law For Mains: 1.Hate speech hurts the nation and the national interest. Comment. |
Source: indianexpress
