Hate speech, IPC sec 295A, and how courts have read the law
- The debate surrounding the comments by BJP spokespersons have put the spotlight on the law that deals with criticism of or insult to religion.
- Provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), primarily Section 295A, define the contours of free speech and its limitations with respect to offences relating to religion.
Section 295A & others
- India does not have a formal legal framework for dealing with hate speech.
- However, a cluster of provisions, loosely termed hate speech laws, are invoked.
- These are primarily laws to deal with offences against religions.
- Section 295A defines and prescribes a punishment for deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
| Section 295A “Whoever, with 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 beliefs 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-This includes offences to penalise damage or defilement of a place of worship with intent to insult the religion
- Section 297-Trespassing in a place of sepulture
- Section 298 - Uttering, words, etc, with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.
- Section 296 - Disturbing a religious assembly
Online Speech
- 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.
Rangila Rasool case
- Rangila Rasool interpretation prompted the colonial government to enact Section 295A with a wider scope.
- Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh (1957) -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 recognised by the Constitution.
- Ramlal Puri v 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”.
- However, these determinations are made by the court and the distinction can often be vague and vary from one judge to the other.
Prelims Takeaway
- IPC sections - Insult to religion
- SC Cases