Context: The recent remarks on the prophet Mohmad put the spotlight on the law that deals with criticism of or insults to religion.

Hate speech

• The Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)(a) provides the right to freedom of speech and expression.
• However, under Article 19(2), there are reasonable restrictions against free speech.
• Hate speech is not defined in the Indian legal framework nor can it be easily reduced to a standard definition due to the different forms it can take.
• Black’s Law Dictionary has defined it as “speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence”.
• The Supreme Court described hate speech as “an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group” and one that “seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.”

Section 295A

• It was brought in 1927.
• It is one of the key provisions in the IPC chapter to penalize religious offences.
• It defines the contours of free speech and its limitations with respect to offences relating to religion.
• It defines and prescribes punishment for deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
• It 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.

Other sections of IPC

• Trespassing in a place of sepulchre- Section 297.
• Uttering, words, etc, with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person-Section 298.
• Disturbing a religious assembly-Section 296.

Section 66A

• In cases where the speech is online, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 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, 1927

• Rangila Rasool, a book, had made disparaging remarks about the Prophet’s private life.
• The case, filed under Section 153A, was dismissed by court, which examined the question of whether targeting religious figures is different from targeting religions.
• But in the 2nd occurrence, the magistrate had convicted the publisher under Section 153A.

Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh

• In 1957, the constitutionality of Section 295A was challenged in this case.
• The Supreme Court upheld the law because 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.

Baba Khalil Ahmed v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1960

• The Supreme Court said that the “malicious intent” of the accused can be determined not just from the speech in question but also external sources.

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.

Baragur Ramachandrappa v State of Karnataka, 2007

• The Supreme Court, “a pragmatic approach” was invoked in interpreting Section 295A.
• The pragmatic approach was to restore public order by “forfeiture” of a book over the individual interest of free speech.