India is a secular nation with a rich diversity of religions and cultures. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains provisions to maintain communal harmony and prevent offences related to religion that may disrupt public order. Section 295 of the IPC & its related sections are particularly significant.
SECTION 295: –
Injurg or defiling a Place of Worship with intent to insult the religion of Any Class:
Section 295 of the IPC criminalizes acts that intentionally insult or attempt to insult the religion of any class by damaging or defiling a place of worship. This offence is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
One of the key elements of this offence is the intention to insult the religion of a particular class. Mere negligence or unintentional acts do not constitute an offence under this section.
In the case of Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P (1957), the Supreme Court held that a Mosque is a place of worship for Muslims, and any intentional and malicious act of blasphemy that insults their religion would constitute an offence under section 295 IPC.
in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962), the Patna High Court held that the word “insult” in Section 295 implies a deliberate intent to outrage religious feelings, and not merely an unintentional act or omission.
Another relevant case is Sanjay Govind Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2007), where the Bombay High Court held that the intention to insult religion must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and accidental or unintentional acts do not fall under Section 295.
The purpose of Section 295 is to maintain public order and prevent the disruption of communal harmony by protecting the sanctity of religious places and beliefs. However, it is essential to interpret this section in a manner that does not unduly restrict the freedom of speech and expression, and the intention to insult religion must be established.
Section 295A:- Deliberate & malicious Acts intended to outrage religious feelings
Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting their religion or religious belief. This offence is punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years, a fine, or both.
It was introduced in 1927 to prevent the wounding of religious sentiments and maintain public order. The key elements of this offence are:
Deliberate and malicious act: The act must be intentional, not negligent or accidental.
Intent to outrage religious feelings: The act must be designed to insult or outrage the religious sentiments of a particular community.
Insulting religion or religious beliefs: The act must involve insulting or showing contempt for the religion or religious beliefs of a particular class.
In the landmark case of Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 295A and stated that it serves a legitimate purpose of preserving public order by criminalizing acts that deliberately and maliciously outrage religious feelings.
Section 296: Disturbing Religious Assembly:-
Section Assembly: prohibits the voluntarily causing the disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship or ceremonies. This offence is punishable with imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.
The essential elements of this offence are:-
- There must are:religious assembly or gathering.
- The accused must have caused a disturbance to the assembly.
- Tin disturbance must have been voluntary and intentional.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both. The rationale behind this provision is to protect the right to freedom of religion and to maintain public order and tranquillity during religious gatherings.
Relevant Case Laws:
Rajendra Sardesai v. State of Gujarat (2001):
The Gujarat High Court held that the mere presence of a person at a religious gathering or ceremony does not amount to disturbing the assembly unless there is an overt act of disturbance.
State v. Jivanlal Gulabchand (1965):
The Bombay High Court ruled that the disturbance must be of such a nature that it interrupts or disturbs the religious assembly or ceremony. Mere disagreement or criticism of religious beliefs does not constitute an offence under this section.
Mohd. Salim v. State (2012):
The Delhi High Court emphasized that the disturbance must be caused intentionally and voluntarily. The unintentional or accidental disturbance does not attract provisions of Section 296.
In summary, Section 296 of the IPC aims to protect the right to religious freedom and maintain public order during religious assemblies or ceremonies. The offence requires an intentional and voluntary act of disturbance that interrupts or disturbs the religious gathering. However, mere presence, disagreement, or criticism of religious beliefs does not constitute an offense under this section.
Section 297:- Trespassing on Burial Places
Section 297 IPC criminalize trespassing on burial places or places of worship with the intent to insult or attempt to insult the religion of any person or to commit any offence punishable under section 295 or Section 296 IPC. This offence is punishable with imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.
The key elements of this offence are:
- Trespass on a place of worship, burial ground, or any place set apart for funeral rites or as a depository for the dead.
- Intent to wound the feelings or insult the religion of any person, or knowledge that such an act is likely to insult or hurt religious sentiments.
Relevant Case Laws:
Rajesh Kutte v. State of Maharashtra (2003):
The Bombay High Court held that the mere presence of an accused in a place of worship without any intention to insult or wound religious sentiments does not constitute an offence under Section 297.
Mohd. Habib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1997):
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the prosecution must prove the intention or knowledge of the accused to insult or wound religious sentiments, and mere trespass alone is not sufficient to establish the offence.
State of West Bengal v. Arun Ghosh (2002):
The Calcutta High Court stated that the intention to insult or wound religious sentiments is the crucial element, and the act of trespass alone is not enough to attract the offence under Section 297.
Section 297 of the IPC aims to protect the sanctity of places of worship, burial grounds, and other religious sites from trespass and acts that may intentionally or knowingly insult or hurt the religious sentiments of individuals or communities.
Section 298: Uttering Words with Deliberate Intent to Wound Religious Feelings
Section 298 IPC prohibits the uttering of words, making gestures, or placing any object in the sight of another person with deliberate intent to wound their religious feelings. This offence is punishable with imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both
In the case of Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007), the Supreme Court held that the essence of an offence under Section 298 IPC is the deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings and not the incidental consequence of the act or utterance.
These sections of the IPC, along with their interpretations by the courts, aim to strike a balance between preserving freedom of speech and expression and maintaining public order by preventing offences that intentionally and maliciously outrage religious feelings or insult religious beliefs.
While these provisions are essential for maintaining communal harmony, their application must be exercised with caution and objectivity, ensuring that they are not misused to curb legitimate criticism, debate, or dissent on religious matters. The courts have consistently emphasized the need for a high threshold of deliberate and malicious intent to invoke these offences, thereby safeguarding the constitutional principles of freedom of speech and expression.
contributed by :- Devesh Modi
ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, Dehradun (20022-2025)