Open Access Research Article
‘COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BALSPHEMY LAWS IN SECULAR AND NON-SECULAR STATES’ BY: ADITYA NARAYAN
Published Paper
Article Details
‘COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BALSPHEMY
LAWS IN SECULAR AND NON-SECULAR STATES’
AUTHORED BY: ADITYA NARAYAN
ABSTRACT
The concept of secularism and blasphemy have been in debate
for over a century. The term secularism was itself coined in 19th
century and yet in Indian perspective there is no clear definition. The
ambiguity in the meaning of the term religion and secularism creates a problem
in defining what amounts to blasphemy. Every state has their own concept as to
what amounts to blasphemy and have made laws as per there understanding.
Comparison must be drawn between these states to understand the broader
picture. The stamp of secular and non-secular state may affect the legislation
around blasphemy. Article tries to find the answer to such questions.
INTRODUCTION
Are the gods actually interested in what we humans have to
say about them? We don't know if they care or they don’t, who knows? However,
it is undeniable that we humans, who worship a god or set of gods, do. While
doing so, some of us who fall under the aegis of a particular faith, sect, or
religion make it our solemn duty to defend the very gods who shield us from
harm. This is how the idea of blasphemy arises. Blasphemy
is defined as “the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence
for God.” When someone hurts or violates your religious sensibilities or
sentiments, insults your God or sacred site, books, texts, etc., that is
considered blasphemy.
For this problem, regulations have been enacted in several
nations. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, 79 of the 198 countries and
territories examined (or 40%) had blasphemy laws or policies in place as of
2019. This puts the concepts of freedom of speech and expression, freedom of
religion, and the secular state in conflict. A secular nation like India has no
explicit legislation against blasphemy; instead, it has a provision in the
I.P.C. 1860, Blasphemy is punishable by imprisonment for up to three years
under Section 295A, which defines it as "
Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any
class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs." Pakistan, a
non-secular nation, under section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860,
imposes the death penalty for "Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect
of the Holy Prophet." The US, a secular nation, has no federal blasphemy
laws, but Indonesia has penalties and prison time for blasphemy.
This article seeks to examine how the country's secular
status and blasphemy laws are related. Whether blasphemy laws are appropriate
in a multi-cultural or multi-religious community and are they consistent with
freedom of speech and religion. The scope and severity of blasphemy laws, as
well as the definition and interpretation of the term secularism, will all be
examined as it compares various secular and non-secular regimes.
THE CONCEPT OF SECULARISM AND BLASHPHEMY
The definition of the word "Secular" has been
debated ever since the 42nd Constitutional Amendment included it in the
Preamble of India. Due of the ambiguity in its Hindi translation, the question
of whether secular refers to "Panth Nirpeksh" or "Dharma
Nirpeksh" arises. The Hindi translation of the preamble to Indian
constitution uses the term "Panth Nirpeksh" to denote secularism. Since
there is not fixed meaning of the term Dharma itself, its interpretation definition
of "Dharma" is what has led to this misunderstanding in the first
place.
There are four methods to understand Dharma, with Nature
being the first. Dharma as “Nature” refers to a trait that an object possesses
simply by virtue of being there. A thing's Dharma is its fundamental or basic
trait or feature; it is a quality that cannot be separated. "AAg ka Dharma
hai Jalana," as an example. Burning is in fire's essence. It is the core nature.
The fact that fire will always be hot and burn is one of its fundamental
characteristics. There won't ever be a fire that doesn't burn.
Dharma as Duty/Kartvya is the second. This interpretation of
Dharma is highly valued in Indian culture. Every person is thought to have a
specific set of responsibilities and duties depending on the function they
perform in society. Dharma is an action or omission that must be performed by
an individual and is most appropriate in a specific circumstance.
Putradharma, or putridharma, is the obligation a son or
daughter has to their parents. Student's obligation towards professors is known
as Shishyadharma. a King's obligation to the state is the Rajdharma.
Warrior's obligation is Kshtriyadharma, and so forth.
The third method of understanding Dharma is through religion
or community that is Majhab/Panth/Sampraday. Different routes that various
groups of people have developed in accordance with their beliefs for the
benefit of spirituality are regarded as their religion or community. Buddhism,
Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism, and other religions or
communities are all different. Within them, there are other subcommunities. The
fourth concept of Dharma is that each of them has a unique method of worship. When
we discuss the concept of a secular state or secularism in government, we take
into account this interpretation of the Dharma as a religion, community, or
mode of worship.
The idea of secularism holds that religion should not have
any influence or involvement in how society, education, government, and other
institutions are organised. separation between the state and religion. Both
must operate without interfering with one another's domains and independently.
A system which separates religion from the state and its civic concerns is
known as secularism. Secularism as a concept is both positive and
negative.
The negative notion, or western concept if we must, denotes
total separation between the state and religion. On the other side, India
exhibits a positive view of secularism, which is defined as treating all
religions equally or defending them all. "The State does not owe fealty to
any specific religion as such: It is not irreligious or anti-religious; It
allows equal freedom to all religions.
The idea of secularism in India differs significantly from
that in the west. The "State" and "religion" have their own
distinct realms, and both shall not meddle in the affairs of the
other, according to the western concept of secularism. Thus, the full
separation of religion and state is required by the western
understanding of secularism.
However, there is no such "wall of
separation" in India, either in law or in reality. In India, both the
state and religion are permitted to interact and interfere in one another's business
as long as they do so within the limits that have been set by law and the
courts. In other words, secularism in India does not call for the complete
exclusion of religion from public policy. The state is not permitted to provide
any financial assistance to educational institutions managed by religious
communities on the western model. The Indian model, however, has selected a
constructive approach to interaction. All religious minorities in India have
the legal right to create and maintain their own educational institutions, with
possible state support.[1] In the
western paradigm, the state stays out of religious concerns until they are
conducted within the bounds of the law. On the contrary, Indian secularism
requires the state to intervene in religion in order to purge its vices. India
has interfered by implementing legislation that forbids the customs of dowry,
child marriage, animal and bird sacrifice, sati, or the burning of widows, as
well as entrance of Dalits in temples. Religion is completely consigned to the
private domain and has no place at all in public life according to the western
concept of secularism. Since no public policy can be created in the west
on the basis of religion, the government is completely cut off from the religious
activities and practises of its people. The government of India has a
policy of establishing Wakf Boards, Departments of Religious Endowments, etc.
Additionally, it is involved in choosing the Trustees for these boards.
Secularism does not entail separating the state from
religion in the context of India. Instead, the Constitution protects freedom of
religion and "religious practises," freedom of conscience and free
speech, as well as the right to practise and spread one's religion.[2] But the
limitations outlined in the Constitution itself apply to these rights. The
Supreme Court of India observed that "secularism" did not imply being
either pro- or anti-god; rather, it simply insured that no one is treated
differently on the basis of religion.[3]
According to the Indian Constitution, secularism did not imply that India was
an atheist society, but rather that it was a heterogeneous society that
accorded equal status to all religions without favouring or discriminating
against anyone.[4]
To properly exercise the rights stipulated under Right to
freedom of Religion it has to be coupled with Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution. One of the most important liberties that aids in the spread of a
religion is the freedom of speech and expression[5]. The
limitations set by the abovementioned provisions itself apply to the promotion
or propagation of one's religion. One must be careful not to injure or
disparage another person's faith or religious sentiments when engaged in
religious advocacy, propagation, discussion, or debate. Any situation in which
you disparage other deities, sacred places, or religious ideals, that is where
the concept of Blasphemy comes in.
The word "blasphemy" originally just meant an
insult or a type of verbal mockery because it derives from the Greek words “blaptein”
“Injure,” and pheme, "Reputation." However, because of the general
uses it has had throughout history that connect it to the divine or the sacred,
it is viewed as a type of transgression or sacrilege. Blasphemy, which is often
seen by monotheistic religions as a terrible sin and even as a penal act in
theocratic or confessional governments, is an insult or an insulting remark
intended towards God or cosmic majesty. In reality, there have always been
several laws against blasphemy, born in either Christian or Muslim countries,
both of which carry the death penalty. While these kinds of crimes were mostly
eliminated in the West by the French Revolution of 1789, it is still possible
to find them in other cultural areas in the twenty-first century.
What now qualifies as blasphemy depends on a religion's
tenets and particular theology. For instance, the Charlie Hebdo shooting
revenge for the printing of cartoons or any visual representation of the
prophet, which are considered blasphemous or sacrilegious in Islam.
In Christianity it refers to any offence against God's
honour, whether it involves offending him directly or indirectly. Blasphemy is
therefore seen as the antithesis of praise. In the Old Testament, blasphemy was
punishable by death by stoning. The Bible contains multiple verses that discuss
blasphemy and its consequences.
The son of the Israelite woman cursed and blasphemed the
Name. Afterward, they took him to Moses. Anyone who profanely mentions
the Lord must be executed, whether they are foreigners or native-born, the
entire crowd must stone them...[6]
And whoever says anything unkind about the Son of Man will
be pardoned, but whoever says anything against the Holy Spirit will
not be pardoned, neither in this age nor in the age to come. [7]
THE INDIAN LAWS AND PERSPECTIVE
One must think about India's pre-independence history in
order to comprehend the situation there. It was determined that India would be
a sovereign, secular, democratic republic given the communal context of the
country's partition and the ongoing diversity within it. In common parlance,
secularism refers to the idea that the State is not associated with any
particular religion, but rather remains impartial and only steps in as a
mediator in a small number of contentious situations when there is a threat to
the public's health, morality, or order, and when religion involves social
issues.[8] The laws
governing religion in India are divided into two categories: criminal law and
constitutional law, as was discussed above, every citizen of India is
guaranteed fundamental rights by the Indian Constitution in respect to freedom
of religion. In regards to criminal law, Indian law did not prohibit blasphemy
until 1920s despite the country's predominately Hindu population.
Due to the release of books like Rangeela Rasool, which made fun of
the Prophet Mohammed, the Hindus and Muslims clashed for the first time over
the issue of blasphemy in the 1926.
The IPC's Section 153A delas with offence of Promoting
discord, hostility, or animosity amongst various groups on the basis of
religion, race, place of birth, domicile, language, etc., as well as engaging
in actions that undermine the maintenance of harmony. It offers a chance to
penalise any publication that tries to incite animosity between social strata.
If a crime is encouraged on religious grounds, the punishment is specified in
Section 153A.
According to Section 153B, any accusations of a person's
disloyalty made because of their membership in a certain racial or religious
group will result in punishment. Under section 153A reasonable preventive
measures may therefore be implemented for the conservation of communal harmony
if someone is indulged in preaching of communal hatred. This can be inferred
from the language employed and the context of the writing's publication. It
doesn't matter if the assertion is true or not. For instance, a spectacular
statement that appeared in headlines and was made at a time when there was a
lot of animosity between the two populations served to intensify those
feelings.
Offenses against religion are covered in detail in Chapter
15 of the Indian Penal Code, from Sections 295 to 298. However, only Section
295A qualifies to address blasphemy. It is sometimes contended that Section
295(A) prohibits hate speech rather than blasphemy. Section 295(A) of the Penal
Code was created with the intent of criminalizing blasphemy and preventing the
instigation of violence through blasphemous acts. This intention can be clearly
understood by considering the circumstances surrounding the section's
introduction and the chapter under which it is located. Section 295A's goal is
to maintain public order. thus, any attempt to destabilize it on the basis of
religion is dealt with harshly. Although, according to the Supreme court,
this clause does not make every insult to religion is illegal but
mainly the more severe kinds that tend to disrupt the peace.[9]
The nature of Indian society is quite complex. There are
different religions and sects, and there are many stark differences in their
philosophies. One such instance is the controversy surrounding the Mahishasur
Divas celebration, when the celebrators were accused of inciting hate on
purpose and the celebration's theme was in direct opposition to traditional
Hindu religion.[10]
It is improper for a state to intervene in the religious affairs of a community
with such opposing ideals because it will be very challenging to keep a neutral
stance in a secular state with such a multiethnic society. The fact that an
F.I.R. was brought under section 295(A) against two women for their comments
against a Hindu nationalist politician, equating him to a religious figure, provides
insight into the complexities of Indian society.
The editor of a cow protection magazine was charged under
Law 295A in Ramjilal Modi v. State of U.P.[11]
and he brought the matter before the Supreme Court of India. He contested
the constitutionality of the section itself, arguing that it violates article
19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The court had ruled that Article 19(2) of
the Constitution allows the state to impose restrictions on free speech and
expression "in the interests of public order." According to the
court, the phrase "In interests of" gave it a really broad scope, and
the state might enact any law for this. The law, according to the court, is for
aggravated speech meant to disrupt public order.
Sections 298 of the Indian Penal Code have additional
provisions. -Using language, gestures, etc. with the goal to offend someone's
religious sensibilities: - Whoever speaks, makes a sound, or makes a gesture in
the presence of another person with the intent to offend that person's religious
sensibilities will be penalised with either a term of imprisonment that may be
up to a year long, a fine, or a combination of the two.[12]
According to the ruling in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia,
"a limitation imposed in the interests of public order should be that
which has a proximate connection or nexus with public order. It must not
be a far-fetched, hypothetical, problematic, or too extreme in the
sequence of its relation with the public order."[13]The
court further ruled that the claimed utterance should be like a "Spark in
the Powder Keg" and "intrinsically hazardous to the public
interest" in the case of S. Rangarajan.[14]
The extent of free expression is expanded in light of the
state case laws mentioned above. The concept of an "imminent lawless conduct"
makes it extremely challenging in the event of blasphemous acts, nonetheless,
from a practical standpoint. It is highly erratic which speech that contains
blasphemous elements will incite violence. One cannot presume or foresee how
the community will respond to blasphemous words. While members of an Islamic
extremist organisation hacked off the hands of a Christian professor in Kerala,
India for blaspheming, a Hindu leader's blasphemous statement in 2016 sparked
the Kaliachak Riots in West Bengal, India.
However, many blasphemous utterances go unreacted to by the
general people. No standard can be used to determine whether a statement would
result in any "imminent lawless conduct." The fear of being
prosecuted under Section 295(A) may prevent someone from expressing their right
to free expression, which may or may not result in any disturbance. It instils
terror in the minds of sceptics of religious ideas and rationalists, preventing
them from using their rights out of concern that society will overreact.
BLASPHEMY LAWS IN SECULAR AND NON-SECULAR STATES
According to their constitutional provisions and keeping in
mind the two concepts of secularism, the following nations have been
categorised as secular or non-secular and their respective blasphemy laws have
been discussed.
SECULAR STATES
SOUTH SUDAN
South Sudan is secular nation as per their constitution
“Artcile8. Religion
1.
Religion and State shall
be separate.
2.
All religions shall be
treated equally and religion or religious beliefs shall not be used for
divisive purposes.”[15]
Offences relating to religion are provided in section 242 to
243 of the Penal code of South-Sudan. It talks about “Insulting or exciting
contempt of religious creed” “Abuse of Religious and Nobel belief” “Injury or
defiling of place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class”[16] All the
sections provide an imprisonment exceeding upto 3 years with or without fine.
GREECE
“The prevailing religion in Greece is
that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church of Greece,
acknowledging our Lord Jesus Christ as its head, is inseparably united in
doctrine with the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople and with every other
Church of Christ of the same doctrine, observing unwaveringly, as they do, the
holy apostolic and synodal canons and sacred traditions.”[17]
Officially, Greece is a secular state.
However, the Greek Orthodox Church has a significant impact on both its
religious and social landscape. The percentage of people who identify as Greek
Orthodox Christians is thought to be 98%.
Initially there were blasphemy laws in
Greece enshrined under their penal code.
Article 198 of the Greek Penal Code
stated that “1. One who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes
God shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years; 2. Anyone,
except as described in par.1, who displays publicly with blasphemy a lack of
respect for things divine, is punished with up to 3 months in prison.”[18]
Article 199 declared similar provisions
against anyone who “blasphemes the Greek Orthodox Church or any other religion
tolerable in Greece”, imprisonable for up to two years.[19]
2019 saw the repeal of the
"blasphemy" statute following a number of high-profile blasphemy
trials and international condemnation.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
It is a secular Nation which is clearly
evident from their constitution as it clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion”[20]
Blasphemy laws still exist in some US
states, including Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming,
and Pennsylvania. These statutes are in flagrant violation of the US
Constitution's provisions of free speech and religious expression. These rules
date back to the colonial era and have not been in effect since the late 20th
century.
CANADA
Canada is again a secular state as it
does not recognize any particular religion as a state religion. And all
Although Canada typically upholds human rights and liberties, up until December
2018 there was a statute banning "blasphemous libel."
The Senate overturned the
"blasphemy" law and several other "archaic" pieces of
legislation on December 11, 2018, by passing Bill C-51. According to
"Section 296 of the Criminal" Code, "Blasphemous
Libel" is an indictable offence that carries a sentence of up to two years in jail. The clause offered a
defence of "good faith and polite language," but it has also been
used as a threat of legal action against satire and criticism. In 1979, a
priest attempted to bring legal action against a theatre that had shown Monty
Python's The Life of Brian, but the attorney general of Ontario declined to
bring charges.
INDONESIA
It considers itself secular but no
mention of the term secularism in constitution and has a muslim majority which
do influence political decision making, the constitution gurantees freedom of
worship each according to his her own religion or belief.
“Article 29
1.
The State shall be based
upon the belief in the One and Only God.
2.
The State guarantees all persons
the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.”[21]
The nation of Indonesia is obligated to "Belief in the
one and only God," according to the Pancasila state philosophy. Identity
based on religion or belief is severely constrained. The blasphemy legislation
makes it illegal to promote certain views, including atheism, as well as to
criticise them.Promoting atheism or any other religion outside the six
recognised by law is prohibited by the nation's blasphemy laws.
Article 156(a) of the nation's penal code additionally
imposes a five-year prison sentence for "disseminating information
intended to incite religious hatred or hostility."Although the
constitution provides the right to free speech, atheism is essentially outlawed,
and religious criticism is severely constrained.
NON-SECULAR STATES
AFGHANISTAN
It is a non-secular state as it clearly choses Islam as the
state religion
“The sacred religion of Islam is the religion of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. Followers of other faiths shall be free within the
bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rituals.”[22]
"Blasphemy" is not specifically included in the
penal code, the courts instead apply Islamic law to resolve the matter.
According to some interpretations of Islamic law, blasphemy, that includes
anti-Islamic writings or speech, is a crime punishable by death. Atheists and
secularists are consequently compelled to conceal their opinions, and the only
way they can do it is through the anonymity of social media. An Islamic judge
can sentence a person to death for blasphemy if they are a male over the age of
18 or a female over the age of 16 and of sound mind. Blasphemy suspects receive
a same three-day warning as apostates: they must repent or risk death.
PAKISTAN
It is again
a non-secular state as per their constitution adopting Islam as the state
religion
1.
“Pakistan shall be
Federal Republic to be known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hereinafter
referred to as Pakistan.
295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage,
religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
295-B. Defiling etc. of holy Quran, 295-C. Use of derogatory remarks etc. in
respect of the holy prophet. These provisions provide for imprisonment
extending upto 10 years to life imprisonment and death penalty
MALTA
Malta is also a non- secular nation as per
their constitution.
- “The religion of Malta is the
Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
- The authorities of the Roman
Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which
principles are right and which are wrong.
- Religious teaching of the Roman
Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools as part of
compulsory education.”[24]
The Catholic Church, which continues to have a strong
influence in Malta, has opposed the establishment of divorce and same-sex civil
unions, but Malta has undergone significant liberal legislation in recent
years. The "vilification" of religion statute, which had criminalised
speech on a wide range of subjects and had been utilised regularly, was
eventually repealed in 2016. Justice Minister Owen Bonnici had noted when
introducing the bill for elimination in 2016 that "people should be able
to make fun of faiths while not encouraging hatred." On July 12, 2016, the
law was given final approval by the legislature at its third reading.
ICELAND
“The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the State Church in
Iceland and, as such, it shall be supported and protected by the State.”[25]
The freedom of religion is guaranteed
under the constitution as long as it doesn't interfere with morality or the
rule of law. In 2015, Iceland repealed its blasphemy law.
Religious doctrine "derision"
was illegal up to 2015 and was punishable by a prison term.
The general penal code of the nation
additionally stipulated penalties and prison terms of a maximum of three months
for individuals who publicly mocked or denigrated the religious beliefs or worship
of an official religious organisation operating in the nation.
Representatives of the parliamentary
Pirate Party presented a proposal to repeal the statute in response to the 2015
Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris. 2015 saw the abolition, which was supported by
people from all political parties and groups.
SRI LANKA
It is non-secular Buddhist country,
their constitution under Chapter II titled Buddhism clearly provides:
1.
“The Republic of Sri
Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the
duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to
all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).”[26]
The Penal Code's Articles 290 to 292 lay out the parameters
for prohibiting statements that offend religious sensibilities. Expressions
that are construed as offensive to religion are prohibited by Article 291A and
291B.
“Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the
religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the
hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or
places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both.”[27]
“Whoever, with the deliberate and malicious intention of
outraging the religious feelings of any class of persons, by words, either
spoken or written, or by visible representations, 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 two years, or
with fine, or with both.”[28]
ISRAEL
Israel is a non-secular Jewish nation
“The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect freedom of
occupation, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of
Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”[29]
The penal code severely restricts expression on religion,
criminalising publications or statements that can "crudely disturb the religious
beliefs or sentiment of others" notwithstanding Israel's "Basic Law
" dedicated to "freedom of religion" and expression.
"The Basic Law on Human Dignity and
Liberty" ensures freedom of expression and of religion, according to
numerous rulings by Israel's Supreme Court. However, the country's penal code's
Article 173, which mandates a one-year prison sentence if a person commits
"blasphemy," is a de facto statute. . “One publishes a publication
that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others,”
or if “One voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any
word or sound that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or
sentiment of others.”[30]
CONCLUSION
St. Thomas Aquinas, a revered jurist and theologian, asserts
that when we “compare
murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that
blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is graver than
murder, which is a sin against one's neighbour. On the other hand, if we
compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin,
for murder does more harm to one's neighbour, than blasphemy does to God”[31] Blasphemy
is illegal if it is outlined in the religious laws themselves in states where
there is an official state religion. These states often often preserve
religious laws as criminal laws or base their penal laws on religious laws.
There has been no such drastic difference in the laws of secular or non-secular
states, they are more or less the same except for few such as Pakistan.
For instance, the Afghan constitution
designates Islam as the "official religion of the state" and declares
that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred
religion of Islam" and that "the provisions of adherence to the
fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic
Republic cannot be amended." The courts apply the revered Shari'a law to
cases involving matters that the Constitution and Penal Code do not address,
like as conversion and blasphemy. Blasphemy laws are implemented by the
majority of nations as a justifiable restriction to preserve harmony in the
state. Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code was ostensibly added to stop a
wave of intercommunal violence sparked by the utterance of blasphemous words.
Overall, the justifications for considering blasphemy to be unlawful are
frequently entwined, difficult to separate, and occasionally may even support
one another. For instance, a state that recognises a certain religion as its
official religion is likely to uphold religion's sacredness.
It is obvious that any verbal attack
that denigrates this moral code would cause dissatisfaction that may (or may
not) be violent in nature when a state acknowledges that religion functions as
a moral code that drives a human being and affects his or her way of thinking.
In the constitutions of many nations, including India,
freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that is also recognised
as a human right. Several international agreements have endorsed the right to
free speech and
Expression is a privilege that cannot be restricted because
it contains blasphemous components.
Blasphemy has long been considered a means through which the
majority might subjugate the minority. Pakistan serves as a prime illustration
of the same.
The Pakistani Penal Code contains sections that impose harsh
penalties notwithstanding the Constitution's inclusion of freedoms of
expression and religion. The country's blasphemy laws are in conflict with
international law and may potentially be considered to be unconstitutional. Shahbaz Bhatti, the minister of
minority affairs, and Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, were killed for
their extended support of Asia Bibi and opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy laws
in the infamous case of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who was found guilty under
that country's blasphemy legislation. There are numerous such instances where
blasphemy accusations have resulted in severe bloodshed and mob justice.
The Status of secular or non-secular
does not have much impact, majority of Muslim and Christian states have
incorporated blasphemy laws in there penal codes and that too with time is
getting abolished. The progressive state of states and people is making this
happen. India also does not require any specific blasphemy law to regulate such
incidents. Being a multi-cultural and pluralistic society agreements and
disagreements are bound to happen. Section 295 A of the IPC is more than
sufficient to control the situation. One thing must be kept in mind while
exercising this power is that it must be applied and enforced equally in every
situation. As far as the violation of fundamental right to freedom of speech is
considered Blasphemy falls under the ambit of reasonable restriction.
[1] Indian Constitution Art. 30
[2] Indian Constitution. Art. 25
[3] Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College v.
State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1389
[4] S R Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1918
[5] Indian Constitution Art. 19(1)(a)
[6] Holy Bible, English Standard
Version, Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers 2016, Leviticus
24:11
[7]Id. Matthew 12:32
[8] Justice P.B. Mukhaiji,
"Subjective Civil Liberties," Civil Liberties: Ramananda Lectures
(1965) of the Calcutta University
[9] Supreme Court hearing on Indian
television documentary “Tamas”.
[10] S.N Vijetha, Student Groups come
to Blows over Mahishasur issue at JNU Once again, The Hindu, 11 Oct 2014,
(Accessed on 20 Nov. 2022)
[11] Ramji Lal Modi Vs. State of U.P,
1957 AIR 620; 1957 SCR 860
[12] I.P.C Sec. 298
[13] The Superintendent, Central
Prison, Fatehgarh Vs. Ram Manohar Lohia, 1960 AIR 633; 1960 DVR(2) 821
[14] S. Rangarajan ETC Vs. P. Jagajivan
Ram, 1989 SCR(2) 204
[15] South Sudan Const. Art. 8
[16] The Penal Code 2003, south sudan
[17] Greek Const. Art. 3
[18]Greek Penal code Art. 198
[19] Ibid. Art. 199
[20] US Const. Amendment 1
[21] Const. of Indonesia Art. 29
[22] Const. of Afghanistan Art. 2
[23] Const. of the Islamic republic of
Pakistan Art. 1 & 2
[24] Const. of Malta Art. 2
[25] Const. of Iceland Art. 62
[26] Const. of Sri Lanka Chapter II
[27] Penal Code of Sri Lanka Art. 291A
[28] Ibid. Art. 291B
[29] Const. of Israel Amendment 1
[30] Penal Code of Israel Art. 173
[31] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Vol.3 Part-II (2nd Ed. Cosimo, Inc. 2013) p.1226
Article Information
‘COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BALSPHEMY LAWS IN SECULAR AND NON-SECULAR STATES’ BY: ADITYA NARAYAN
Authors: ADITYA NARAYAN
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/05/08
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.