This article was written by Aman Agrawal, a student of ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad.
In the Kesavananad Bharti Case Of 1973 Honourable Supreme Court held that preamble is an integral part of Indian constitution hence the it is the responsibility of legislative, judicial and executive to keep Indian a SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST, SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC but many statutes in the constitution contradicts this and violate article 19 of Indian constitution.
In the constitution of Indian, the word “secular” was added in the preamble by the 42nd Amendment, which made it clear that Indian is a secular country will neither promote any religion and be a part of the religious matter of the people as all religions are equal to the state.
Section 295A occupies a definite house within the Indian penal code and has long been considered Indian’s answer to blasphemy laws prevailing in different criminal statutes. it’s been recurrently utilized in recent times and has generated a wide-ranging spectrum of reactions from the general public and also the civil society, although such laws ought to apparently assume a lesser role in a nation that aims to separate State and faith
In the Ramji Lal Modicase the court had held that the Constitution in Article 19(2) permits the state to restrict freedom of speech and expression „in interests of public order‟. The court stated that the term „In interests of‟ gave it a very wide ambit and state can make any law for it. The court also stated that the law is for an aggravated form of speech intended to disturb public order. However the court discarded the idea of proximity between the speech and the violence that the state fears.
In the Arup Bhuyan‟s case, Justice Markandey Katju under the light Clarence Brandenburg vs. State of Ohio that a speech cannot be restricted unless it provokes imminent lawless action. In the light of above state case laws, Free speech gets a wider scope. However, in practical approach, the idea of an “imminent lawless action‟ makes it very difficult in the case of Blasphemous acts. It is quite unpredictable as to what statement containing elements of blasphemy has the capability to spark off violence.
The section 295 (A) has place stress on the Mensrea of the act and makes solely those act that
are finished part of malice in it, punishable. but what’s to be looked into is that the
fact that, once it involves the malice, proving it’s a posh and tough issue, and in Republic of Indian then disposal rate of cases square measure terribly slow. Most of the days, such cases take a really while & surpass the length of the penalisation itself.
The part of “Malice‟ was supplementary to create positive that any necessary or constructive criticism doesn’t get restricted. but as noted higher than, works of literature, history, and constructive criticism all have gotten affected owing to the worry of prosecution that the publishers, authors &artist at persistently have round-faced. Most of the authors of such constructive criticism worry the lengthy court trials and thus don’t become as vocal as they may be with the laws on their side.
In Sri Baragur Ramachandrappa v State of Karnataka,a case that concerned the ban of a Kannada novel that fictionalised the lifetime of the twelfth century Saint Basaveshwara. The author had instructed that Saint Basaveshwara’s nephew was born out of marital status.
The followers of Basaveshwara ultimately affected the State to ban the book, which duly obligated. Later, the Supreme Court upheld the decision after rigorously going over substantial analysis done by Kannada scholars and native beliefs. It ended that the author had deliberately tried to spin and introduce a very‘sordid and puerile story’.What the Court had worn out impact was to imply that even an author of fiction had to somehow straddle precepts of scholarly analysis once writing a humanistic work, a bit of reasoning that’s unconvincing and illogical and one that the Court would move to maneuver removed from within the future
In State Of Maharashtra V Sangharajndamodar Rupawate,a case regarding the disputation that encircled James Laine’s book, Shivaji: A Hindu Kingin Islamic Indian.
The incident led to widespread protests in Maharashtra. The Supreme Court used the occurrences as grounds for declaring that the book was to blame for making feelings of enmity between categories. additional curiously, however, they conjointly control that if any piece of labor led to such incidents, even the very fact that it contains historical truth isn’t an appropriate defence.
There are several instances wherever the misuse of blasphemy law is seen, like on August 20, 2013, driving hostile to belief candidate Narendra Dabholkar was shot and dead by 2 men on a motorcycle. The murder came days once the state government swore to represent an against belief charge, went for making it an offense to abuse or dupe people with ‘otherworldly’ customs, charms and cures. This bill was nearly connected with Dabholkar’s work and was contradicted by numerous conservative and Hindu national bunches who marked it “hostile to Hindu”.
In light of the above judgments and reasoning on its situation with relevance its constitutionality, the interpretation by the courts of Section 295 A has been within the wrong means and to resolve this issue a whole ban or repeal Section 295 A isn’t the answer.
In the introduction itself, it’s been same that Indian may be a secular country and this section of IPC helps to take care of the purity of the secular nature. though IPC came method prior To the constitution, however the said section maintains the essence of philosophy by protecting the non-secular sentiments equally, by criminalizing intentional acts on non-secular sections. instead of to finish off this section or repeal it, the misuse of such section ought to be curb down which will happen with the correct interpretation of the said section.
The state can solely interfere, or the judiciary should solely interfere when the speech or expression can produce public disorder, and not when it’s a small affiliation or remote one to form public Disorder
(1973) 4 SCC 225)
295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.—Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 273 [citizens of Indian], 274 [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 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.
1957 AIR 620
 395 U.S. 444 (1969)