Blasphemy Cases And Supreme Court Rulings
🔹 I. Understanding Blasphemy
1. Definition
Blasphemy generally refers to speaking, writing, or acting in a way that shows disrespect or contempt toward religious beliefs, deities, or sacred symbols. In law, it often overlaps with provisions regulating hate speech, public order, and religious insult.
2. Legal Provisions in India
In India, there is no specific “blasphemy law”, but related offenses are covered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 295 IPC – Injuring or defiling a place of worship or sacred object with intent to insult religion.
Section 295A IPC – Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Section 298 IPC – Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.
Section 153A IPC – Promoting enmity between different religious groups.
Key legal principle: The law aims to balance freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) with protection of religious sentiments (Article 25 & 26).
🔹 II. Important Supreme Court Cases in India
Case 1: Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620
Facts:
Ramji Lal Modi published a book that contained statements allegedly insulting Hindu scriptures. He was charged under Section 295A IPC.
Issue:
Whether freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) protects statements that outrage religious feelings.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 295A and ruled:
Freedom of speech is not absolute.
Section 295A targets deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Honest criticism or discussion of religion does not amount to an offense; intent is key.
Significance:
Laid down the test of mens rea (intent) for blasphemy.
Distinguished between criticism and deliberate insult.
Case 2: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 (Indirect reference)
Facts:
While not a direct blasphemy case, this early case clarified restrictions on fundamental rights under Article 19(2).
Relevance to Blasphemy:
The Court recognized that reasonable restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech to prevent public disorder or outrage of religious feelings.
Significance:
Forms the constitutional backbone for Sections 295A and 298 IPC.
Case 3: Archbishop of Cuttack v. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 1260
Facts:
A Christian missionary was accused of insulting Hindu beliefs during a sermon. The issue was whether freedom of religion under Article 25 protects such speech.
Judgment:
The Court held that freedom of religion does not extend to acts that deliberately offend others.
Section 295A IPC is constitutionally valid.
Significance:
Reinforced that the intent to outrage religious feelings is central to a conviction.
Balanced Article 19(1)(a) and 25.
Case 4: Chandulal Bhagwandas v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 263
Facts:
A pamphlet published contained offensive material about Hindu deities. The accused argued that Section 295A violates free speech.
Judgment:
The Court reiterated Ramji Lal Modi principle.
Emphasized the “deliberate and malicious” test.
Mere offense or hurt feelings does not constitute a crime; there must be intent to outrage religious sentiment.
Significance:
Strengthened clarity on what constitutes punishable blasphemy in India.
Case 5: Dr. M.F. Husain Case (M.F. Husain v. State of Maharashtra, 2008)
Facts:
Renowned painter M.F. Husain was accused of hurting Hindu religious sentiments through paintings depicting Hindu goddesses in the nude.
Legal Issues:
Application of Section 295A IPC.
Conflict between artistic freedom and protection of religious feelings.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court did not convict Husain, as many cases were withdrawn due to lack of sufficient evidence and concerns over intent.
Held that freedom of expression includes artistic expression, and malice must be clearly proved.
Significance:
Highlighted tension between art and blasphemy laws.
Confirmed that malicious intent is crucial, not merely offending sentiments.
Case 6: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
This case challenged Section 66A of IT Act, used to prosecute online posts, including offensive posts that sometimes involved religious sentiments.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A for being overbroad and vague, limiting freedom of expression.
Reinforced that online speech criticizing religion must be examined for intent, not mere offense.
Significance:
Strengthened digital-era understanding of blasphemy and freedom of speech.
Courts must distinguish malicious intent vs. casual offense.
🔹 III. Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Intent Matters: Only deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings are punishable.
Freedom of Expression vs. Religious Sensibilities: There is a constitutional balance between Article 19(1)(a) and Articles 25–26.
Public Order Consideration: Blasphemy laws are justified to prevent communal disharmony.
Art and Criticism: Honest criticism, satire, or artistic expression is generally protected.
Digital Era Implications: Online speech must also be examined for intent and malice.
🔹 IV. Comparative Notes (Other Jurisdictions)
Pakistan: Blasphemy laws (Sections 295–298) are strict, often imposing death penalty; intent is not always required.
UK: Public Order Act 1986 governs hate speech; blasphemy laws historically existed but were abolished in 2008.
US: First Amendment protects speech about religion almost absolutely, unless it incites imminent violence.
🔹 V. Conclusion
Blasphemy cases in India are governed by Sections 295, 295A, 298 IPC, interpreted in the light of constitutional freedoms.
Supreme Court rulings consistently emphasize:
Malicious intent is essential,
Freedom of speech and religion is not absolute,
Mere offense is insufficient for conviction,
Courts try to balance art, criticism, and religious sentiments.
These cases collectively provide a legal framework for blasphemy-related prosecutions while safeguarding freedom of expression.
RELATED Blog
0 comments