Drawing the line between overreacting and insulting religious sentiments

The Supreme Court order making light of alleged insults to religion that were made carelessly or without malice will help to correct the rash of criminal complaints and litigation that are needlessly initiated to harass those merely exercising their freedom of speech and expression. Article 295A of the Indian Penal Code incriminates deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting a religion or religious beliefs and is punishable with three years imprisonment. There can be no two interpretations that the IPC clearly incriminates only deliberate and malicious acts. A 1957 Supreme Court judgment also set the precedent for the applicability of this section. Yet, these are subjective for many people and in recent times when religiosity is witnessing a revival, amid social and political polarisation, this has given rise to an army of quick-to-take-offence busybodies. So it was important for the Supreme Court to reiterate what the court said 60 years ago. More importantly, this judgment needs to be disseminated to police stations and lower courts so that frivolous complaints are not entertained.  

The petitioner in the present case was none other than former Indian test captain MS Dhoni whose appearance in a cover picture of a magazine featured him as a “god”. This offended a reader who decided this was a penal offence. The Supreme Court was quick to take note that there was no deliberate or malicious attempt to insult any religion. Further, it reiterated the 1957 judgment that penalised the “aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings”. In recent times, many celebrities have come under danger of this IPC provision. Singer Sonu Nigam who expressed his disgust at illegal loudspeakers from a neighbouring mosque disrupting his sleep and advocate Prashant Bhushan who referred to Lord Krishna as a “legendary eve-teaser” while criticising Yogi Adityanath’s anti-Romeo squads targeting young couples are just the latest examples. Rationalists who critique superstition and medieval religious practices have also faced the ire of Section 295A irrespective of religious faith. In the case of rationalists, even this judgment of the Supreme Court may not come to their aid as they are known to use the harshest of language to condemn various religious practices and superstitions and it is possible that these may be construed as a deliberate intent to outrage religious feelings even when it is not malicious.

The keywords here are “deliberate”, “malicious”, and “aggravated form of insult”, and each of these ingredients will have to be satisfied. But the offence industry can scarcely be bothered by such nuances. Three years ago, the Supreme Court had told lawyers up in arms against the Bollywood film Jolly LLB’s portrayals of their profession not to watch the film if it offended them. References to religion are integral to art, culture, literature, theatre, politics, cinema , and society at large. The fear of offending someone must not have a chilling effect on free speech and creative and artistic expression. It is natural then that praise, criticism, humour, satire, and reformation of religion will be attempted by people working in these spheres. Excessive political correctness is a symptom of a cautious and prudish society. The Supreme Court judgment offers a moment of reassurance for the country that the top court remains sensitive to the importance of preserving individual rights from the onslaught of narrow social collectivism.