Insults made on the religious faith of a particular community “unwittingly or carelessly” without malice is not an offence, the Supreme Court has clarified.
Only an “aggravated” form of insult of a religion with a “deliberate and malicious” intent to outrage that religious faith amounts to a criminal offence, the court held.
A Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra has reiterated a 60-year-old Constitution Bench ruling in Ramji Lal Modi versus State of Uttar Pradesh that Section 295A IPC (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) “does not penalise any and every act of insult to or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens but it penalises only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class”.
Section 295A mandates that “whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, 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 three years, or with fine, or with both”.
The court observed that only a calculated act to insult religion would disrupt public order. The court was pronouncing judgment in favour of cricketer M.S. Dhoni, who was charged under Section 295A for being portrayed as Lord Vishnu on a magazine cover. The court quashed the criminal charge against Mr. Dhoni with a warning to lower courts that they should only initiate criminal proceedings in such sensitive issues after being convinced that the act satisfies all the ingredients of the offence accused of.
In The Trustees of Safdar Hashmi case of 2001, the Delhi High Court said the test whether a particular act or words spoken amounts to an insult is when reasonable man finds the words or act “grossly offensive, provocative and malicious” against the religious sentiments of a community.
“Malice in common acceptance means ill will against a person, but in this legal sense it means a wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause or excuse,” the High Court defined 'malice' used in Section 295A of the IPC.
