The Constitution of India and its hate speech laws aim to prevent discord among its many ethnic and religious communities. The laws allow a citizen to seek the punishment of anyone who shows the citizen disrespect "on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever". The laws specifically forbid anyone from outraging someone's "religious feelings". The laws allow authorities to prohibit any means of expression which someone finds insulting.
Contents |
The Constitution of India does not provide for a state religion. Section 25(1) states, "Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion". Section 19 gives all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression but subject to reasonable restrictions for preserving inter alia "public order, decency or morality". Section 28 prohibits any religious instruction in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds. Section 51A(h) imposes on every citizen the duty to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.[1]
India prohibits hate speech by several sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and by other laws which put limitations on the freedom of expression. Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the government the right to declare certain publications “forfeited” if the “publication ... appears to the State Government to contain any matter the publication of which is punishable under Section 124A or Section 153A or Section 153B or Section 292 or Section 293 or Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code”.[2]
Section 153A of the penal code says, inter alia:
Enacted in 1927, section 295A says:
In February 2009, the police filed a complaint against Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, the editor and the publisher respectively of the Kolkata-based English daily The Statesman. The police charged Kumar and Sinha under section 295A because they had reprinted an article from The Independent by its columnist Johann Hari. Titled "Why should I respect oppressive religions?", the article stated Hari's belief that the right to criticise any religion was being eroded around the world. Muslim protestors in Kolkata reacted to Hari's belief by violent demonstrations at the offices of The Statesman.[5]
In September or October 2007, the police in Pune arrested four Bangalore-based software-engineers for posting on the Internet an obscene profile of Chhatrapati Shivaji, a sixteenth-century Maratha warrior king, clad in female underwear.[6][7]
On 20 June 2007, a court in the Punjab issued non-bailable arrest warrants against Gurmit Ram Rahim Singh, a chief of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect, for hurting the religious sentiments of the Sikh community. The hurting was the result of Singh's dressing like Guru Gobind Singh.[8]
In May 2007, a Buddhist group in Maharashtra's Amaravati district said their religious sentiments were hurt, and filed a complaint against Rakhi Sawant, an actress, because she posed in a bathtub against a statue of Lord Buddha.[9]
In 2007, the authorities charged ninety-one-year-old Maqbool Fida Husain with hurting religious sentiments by painting Mother India as a naked woman.[10]
In December 2006, a complaint was filed against cricketer Ravi Shastri for hurting the religious feelings of Hindus by his allegedly eating beef during a Test match in Johannesburg.[11]
On 2 August 2006, two religious groups in Ahmedabad complained to the police that their religious sentiments were hurt because a garment-maker had printed text from the Hindu and Jain religions on clothing. The police filed the complaint as a matter under section 295.[12]
In 1933, the police arrested Dr. D'Avoine under section 295A for publishing his article "Religion and Morality" in the September 1933 issue of the magazine Reason. The trial judge found that the article's purpose was consistent with the purpose of the magazine, namely, "to combat all religious and social beliefs and customs that cannot stand the test of reason and to endeavor to create a scientific and tolerant mentality among the masses of the country". The trial judge Sir H. P. Dastur found that the article had no malicious intent and did not constitute a violation of section 295A.[13]
In 1932, some clerics denounced a young woman physician named Rashid Jahan, and threatened her with disfigurement and death. She and three others had published a collection of Urdu short stories called Angarey in which they had robustly criticized obscurantist customs in their own community and the sexual hypocrisies of some feudal landowners and men of religion. Under section 295A, the authorities banned the book and confiscated all copies.[14]
|
||||||||