Hate speech laws in India

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".

This law has often been criticised for being misused by individuals, people or groups for simply censoring or trying to censor conflicting point of views raised by another individual, people or groups irrespective of their objective merits, an example being blasphemy case filed by the Catholic Church against Sanal Edamaruku eventually forcing him out of India into exile for investigating and challenging a report of divine water dripping from the feet of a crucifix at Our Lady of Velankanni church in Mumbai, which he instead correctly attributed to Capillary Action.

The Constitution

The Constitution of India does not provide for a state religion. Article 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". Article 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". Article 28 prohibits any religious instruction in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds. Article 51A(h) imposes on every citizen the duty to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.^[1]

Laws restricting the freedom of expression

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 153(A)

Section 153A of the penal code says,^[3] inter alia:

Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 295(A)

Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) enacted in 1927^[4] says:^[5]

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.^[6]

Legislative history of Section 295(A)

A book, Rangila Rasul was published in 1927. The book concerned the marriages and sex life of Prophet Muhammad. On the basis of Muslim complaint, Publisher was arrested but acquitted in April 1929 because there was no law against insult to religion. Publisher was murdered in Court by Ilm-ud-din. As a result,Ilm-ud-din is honored in Pakistan with the honorifics 'Ghazi' and 'Shaheed'.^[7] Muslim community demanded a law against insult to religious feelings. Hence, Colonial British Government enacted Section 295(A).^[4]

Selected cases

Accused arrested or censored, Court Verdict Guilty

In 1957, Supreme Court uphold decision of lower court. Lower court found publisher Ramji Lal Modi guilty of publishing a cartoon and article which insults religious beliefs of Muslims. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and fined under IPC 295A. Petitioner argued that IPC 295A violated freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(A) of the Constitution and offense of insulting religious beliefs can be committed if there is no danger of public disorder.^[8][9]

In 1961, Supreme court found Henry Rodrigues guilty of insulting religious beliefs of the Roman Catholics, and acting with a malicious intention in publishing and printing the same in 'Crusader' magazine. The defendant, who was a Roman Catholic, stated that he had criticized certain practices and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, which were contrary to what had been stated in the Holy Bible. He further stated that similar views have been expressed in many other well-known work. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.^[10]

In 1960, the Supreme Court upheld a decision of Uttar Pradesh government to forfeit all six books written by Baba Khalil Ahamad because it contained derogatory reference to Muawiya, who was governor of Syria and contemporary of Prophet Hazrat Mohammad, which outrages the religious feelings of Sunni Muslim community.^[11]

In 1984, Supreme court uphold decision of Bihar government to forfeit all the copies of book 'Vishwa Itihas (Pratham Bhag)' on the ground that it contained derogatory reference to Prophet Hazrat Mohammad which outraged the religious feelings of the Muslim community. The petitioner, who is publisher, argued that author has relied on the authoritative historical works like the "Outline of History" by RG., Wells, the "Muhamad at Madina" by W.M.G. Watt and the "Middle East" by S.N. Fisher etc. In discussing the Muhammadan religion he had used his dispassionate expertise as a teacher of history and in fact had praised Prophet Hazrat Mohammad when there was occasion to do so.^[12]

In 2007, R.V. Bhasin's Islam - A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims was banned, and house raided, in Maharashtra on grounds that it outrages the feelings of Muslim section of society.^[13][14][15] In January 2010, the Bombay High upholds the ban imposed by the Government of Maharashtra.^[16]

Accused arrested or censored, Court Verdict unknown or not-guilty

In 1932, some Muslim 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.^[17]

In 1933, police arrested Dr. D'Avoine under section 295A for publishing his article "Religion and Morality", which was considered offensive to Roman Catholics, 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.^[18]

On Sept 26, 1988, London based Penguin group published Satanic Verses. Sensing trouble, Penguin's Indian arm decided not to publish a local edition. Within 9 days of London publication, India banned Satanic Verses becoming the first country to do so.^[19] No petition challenging government order was filed.

In 1990, Understanding Islam through Hadis by Ram Swarup was banned.^[20] In 1990 the Hindi translation of the book was banned, and in March 1991 the English original became banned as well.^[21] Publisher Sita Ram Goel was arrested.^[22] Indian intellectuals protested against the arrest of Goel.^[22] Arun Shourie commented on the criminal case:

No one has ever refuted him on facts, but many have sought to smear him and his writing. They have thereby transmuted the work from mere scholarship into warning. (...)The forfeiture is exactly the sort of thing which had landed us where we are: where intellectual inquiry is shut out; where our traditions are not examined, and reassessed; and where as a consequence there is no dialogue. It is exactly the sort of thing too which foments reaction. (...)"Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected," it [the Supreme Court] declared last year, "cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group or people."^[23]

In 2005, Supreme court set aside decision of West Bengal government to forfeit all the copies of book "Dwikhandita" written by Taslima Narseen. West Bengal government ordered forfeiting of all copies of "Dwikhandita" on the ground that it outraged the religious feelings of the Muslim community.^[24]

In 2006, seven states (Nagaland, Punjab, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh) have banned the release or exhibition of the Hollywood movie The Da Vinci Code (and also the book),^[25] Later, Two states lifted the ban under high court order.

In March 2007, a newspaper editor BV Seetharam was arrested under the Sections 153A, 153B, and 295 of the IPC for allegedly promoting religious hatred. He had written articles criticizing the public nudity of the Digambara Jain monks.^[26]

In September or October 2007, 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.^[27][28]

In February 2009, the police arrested Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, the editor and the publisher respectively of the Kolkata-based English daily The Statesman for hurting Muslim sentiments. 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.^[29]

In November 2012, Maharashtra Police arrested Shaheen Dhada (21) for questioning the total shutdown in the city for Bal Thackeray’s funeral in a Facebook post, and also her friend Renu Srinivasan (20) for liking her post.^[30] Although no religious issue was involved, the two were charged under Section 295 (A) for hurting religious sentiments, apart from Section 66 (a) of the Information Technology Act 2000.^[31] However the charges under Section 295 (A) were later dropped and the girls were charged with Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to statements which create or promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.^[32]

Yogesh Master, a Bangalore based writer was arrested on August 29 over his derogatory remarks on Lord Ganesha, in his Kannada novel Dhundi, which was released on August 21. He was later released on bail. A complaint was lodged at Police Station by various Hindu groups who blamed him of blasphemy and hurting religious sentiments. Yogesh, in his novel Dhundi: The story of a forester becoming Ganapathi wrote that Ganesha was born due to Parvati’s illicit relationship. This had outraged the public at large.^[33]

In 2012 Blasphemy Case, Catholic Church accused rationalist Sanal Edamaruku of Blasphemy for his role in examining a claimed miracle at a Catholic church in Mumbai. He fled to Finland to evade his arrest.

In September 2014, Gujarat Police arrested Sunil Jagdishsinh Rajput whose Facebook post provoked Muslims to go on riot. He was booked under IPC 153(C) and 295(C) and bail was denied. ^[34]

Citizens filed complaints but arrest warrant not issued

On May 27, 1953 5:30 pm IST, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, father of Dravidian Movement, broke the image of God Ganesh in a public meeting at Town Hall. A police complaint was filed and police report verified that the alleged occurrence was true. Local trial magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that the breaking of a mud image of Ganesh is not an offense. Sessions court and high court, agreed with the view trial magistrate. Session court judge stated that Idol breaking by a non-believer cannot be regarded, by a believer, as an insult to his religion. High Court judge also refused to certify that this was a fit case for appeal to Supreme Court under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. On August 25, 1958, A petitioner,S. Veerabadran Chettiar, filed a special leave petition in Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that before breaking the idol, accused gave a speech, and expressly stated that he intended to insult the feelings of the Hindu community by breaking the idol of God. Supreme court disagreed with lower court judgement and criticized lower court for being cynical but concluded that 5 year has passed and case is stale; Therefore, Dismissed the appeal.^[35]

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.^[36]

In December 2006, a complaint was filed against cricketer Ravi Shastri for hurting the religious feelings of Hindus by allegedly eating beef during a Test match in Johannesburg, South Africa.^[37]

In the 1990s, many cases were filed against Maqbool Fida Husain for hurting religious sentiments by painting Bharat Mata as a naked woman.^[38] 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.^[39]

In 3 March 2010, Dinanath Batra sent a legal notice to Wendy Doniger, Penguin Group USA and the Penguin India subsidiary, raising several objections on the book The Hindus: An Alternative History by Doniger.^[40] In February 2014, In a private settlement between Penguin India and Dina Nath, Publisher agreed to withdraw all copies of the book.^[41]

Contradicting Views of Supreme Court

Initial View

The Supreme Court Monday 8 April 2013 issued notice to the central government on a petition seeking framing of guidelines to curb elected representatives from delivering hate speeches in pursuance of their political goals.

An apex court bench headed by the then Chief Justice Altamas Kabir issued the notice after senior counsel Basva Patil told the court that such leaders deliver hate speeches repeatedly, inflaming regional, religious and ethnic passion. He also added that, if arrested after making the hate speech, they repeat their actions upon being released on bail. He urged that the rule of law should be strengthened and such leaders not be permitted to repeatedly make hate speeches.

The notice was also issued to the Election Commission of India, and the Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh governments. The public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by the voluntary organisation Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan.^[42]

More Recent View

The Supreme Court on Monday 3 March 2014, dismissed a PIL by Advocate M L Sharma seeking intervention by the court in directing the Election Commission to curb hate speeches. Dismissing the plea, the Apex court said that it could not curb the fundamental right of the people to express themselves.^[43]

"We cannot curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious rights guaranteed by Constitution," a bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said, adding "we are a mature democracy and it is for the public to decide. We are 1280 million people and there would be 1280 million views. One is free not accept the view of others". Also the court said that it is a matter of perception, and a statement objectionable to a person might not be normal to other person.^[43]

See also

• Freedom of religion in India

References

Hate speech laws by country Australia Canada France India Poland United Kingdom See also: Hate crime