OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION

LAW OF CRIMES

Submitted by:
REDA TAYYABA
ROLL NO 45
BA.LLB. (Hons.) SF
4th Semester

Submitted to:
Mr. Aquib Husain

1
 INTRODUCTION

In this paper we will be discussing on the topic of Offences against Religion which is dealt in the
chapter XV of the IPC. It deals with the offences relating to religion, and is framed on the
principle that every person that every person has full freedom to follow his own religion and that
no one is justified to insult religion or religious feelings of another. It makes any deliberate acts
perpetrated by person of one religious persuasion for the insult or annoyance of persons of
another persuasion punishable.1

This chapter of the IPC seems to be in tune with the constitution ethos of India. India being a
secular, the Indian constitution accords equal protection to all religions. Article 25 of the
constitution guarantees the rights to freedom of religion. All persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right to propagate, practice and profess the religion of their
choice. However, the freedom of religion is not an unlimited one. It is subject to public order,
morality and health.

However, at the same time, the state has to ensure that religious beliefs of individuals do not
become a matter of hostilities, controversies and violence among people. Chapter XV of the IPC
ostensibly helps in maintaining religious harmony in the country.

The chapter contains five sections-ss 295, 295A, 296, 297 and 298. The offences under this
chapter can be broadly classified into the following three divisions-

1) Defilement of places of worship or objects of veneration (ss 295 and 297)

2) Outraging the religious feelings of persons (ss 295A and 298);
3) Disturbing religious assemblies (s 296)

1
Gopinath Puja Panda Samanta v Ramchandra Deb AIR 1958 Ori 220

2
DEFILEMENT OF PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 295. Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the
religion of any class.
Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held
sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion
of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to
consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall
be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 297. Trespassing on burial places, etc
Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of
insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any
person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be
insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of
sculpture, or any place set apart from the performance of funeral rites or as a
depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human
corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of
funeral ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Ingredients
Section 295 compels people to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of
different religious persuasions or creeds by making destruction, damage or
defilement of a place of worship or an object held sacred, with the intent to insult
the religion, by a class of persons, punishable. Section 297 extends the principle
in Section 295 to places which are treated as sacred. It punishes a person who,
with the intent to insult the religion of another or hurt the religious feelings of a

3
 person, commits trespass in any place of worship or of sepulture, or any place of
burial or place set apart for burial rites.2

The essential ingredients of this section are:

1. Intention or knowledge.
2. Destruction, damage or defilement of places of worship and places of veneration
3. An object held sacred
4. Trespass into place of worship or place of sepulcher
5. Indignity to human corpse or disturbing funeral rites

 Intention or knowledge
The essence of the offence under Section 295 is the intention to destroy, damage
or defile a place of worship or an object held sacred. Without the requisite mens
rea, mere defilement of a place of worship is not an offence. The intention to
insult is a question of fact which can be judged depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case.

In the case of Jan Mohammed v. Narain Das3 the accused removed some rubble
and old building materials belonging to a mosque that was in rotten condition and
consequently in disuse. The accused was held not liable under these sections as he
had no intention of insulting the Mohammedan religion or any of its practitioners.
He also had no knowledge that his actions may cause insult or hurt to any class of
people.
 Destruction, damage or defilement of places of worship and places of
veneration
Generally the words destroy or damage usually mean an act physically or
materially affecting the property concerned but it should also be understood in the
sense of making property dirty, unclean or foul. The word ‘defilement’ would not

2
Mustaffa Rahim v Motilal (1909) Cr LJ 160.
3
Jan Mohammad v Narain Das (1883) AII WN 39.

4
 only mean physical destruction but also situations wherein the place of worship or
the object of worship would be rendered ritually or ceremonially impure.4

 An object held sacred

An essential ingredient of this section is that the destruction caused should be of a
place of worship or an otherwise sacred place. Whether or not a particular place
or object is sacred is a question of fact and as a general rule, temples, churches,
mosques, synagogues, kyaungs are all considered sacred by virtue of them being
places of worship. In Joseph v. State of Kerala5 the accused got bona fide
possession of a hut on agricultural land by a court order. This hut was used as a
place of worship by people. The accused took possession and razed the hutment
and took down the pictures of the Hindu Gods. He was charged under Section
295. The High Court held that he had the right to use the land as he pleased and
had not intended to hurt the religious sentiments of others and hence acquitted
him.
 Trespass into place of worship or place of sepulcher
Section 297 makes any trespass into a place of worship or a place of sepulture a
criminal offence. This means that the trespass committed need not amount to
criminal trespass for it to come within the scope of Section 297.6

 Indignity to human corpse or disturbing funeral rites

Showing any manner of disrespect to a human corpse disturbing the performance

of funeral rites is a criminal offence under Section 297. The word ‘disturbance’
means any form of active interference or the hindrance to the performance of the
funeral ceremonies. In Basir-ul-Huq v. State of West Bengal7 the mother of one
Dhirendra Nath Bera died. He along with others took the corpse to the cremation
grounds. In the meantime, the accused filed a complaint with the police stating
that Dhirendra Nath had throttled his mother to death. When the pyre was ablaze,
4
Atmaran v King Emperor AIR 1924 Nag 121, (1925) Cr LJ 155(Nag)
5
AIR 1961 Ker 28
6
Ram Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1952 All 878
7
AIR 1953 SC 293

5
 the accused along with the sub-inspector arrived at the crematorium. The accused
persuaded the policeman that if the flames were extinguished that the marks of
injury would be found on the body. The fire was hence extinguished but no marks
were found. Dhirendra Nath filed a complaint against the accused under Section
297 and stated that a prior enmity caused a mala fide intention to hurt his religious
sentiments which caused him to trespass on the cremation grounds and cause the
dead body to be desecrated. The accused was convicted and sentenced to three
months rigorous imprisonment.

OUTRAGING RELIGIOUS FEELING

Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious

feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs

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.

Section 298. Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the
religious feelings of any person

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.

6
 Ingredients

These sections of the Indian Penal Code relate to acts done deliberately with an
intent to outrage, wound or insult the religious feelings or sentiments of any
persons. Section 295A deals with actions intended to outrage the religious
feelings or insult the religious beliefs or the religion of a particular class of
persons that can be termed as ‘deliberate and malicious’; whereas Section 298
makes punishable those ‘deliberate’ acts of verbal or visible representation that
intend to wound the religious feelings of another.

The words used in ss 295A and 298 are ‘deliberate intention’. In addition to this,
in s 295A, the word ‘malicious’ is also added. The term maliciously denotes
wicked, perverse and incorrigible disposition. It means and implies an intention to
do an act which is wrongful to the detriment of another. Where a person willfully
does an act injurious to another without lawful excuse, it can be said that he has
done it maliciously.8

These sections allow fair latitude for religious discussions and debates but at the
same time prevents people from offering under the pretext of such discussion any
intentional insults to what is held sacred by others.

Constitutional Validity of Section 295A

In Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh9 , the constitutional validity of s 295A
was challenged on the ground that it was violative of art 19(2) of the constitution
of India. Upholding the constitutional validity of s 295A, the Supreme Court ruled
that s 295A is enacted in the interest of the public order, and it penalises only the
deliberate and malicious outraging religious feeling of a class of persons. Such a
penalization falls within cl (2) of art 19 as being a law imposing a reasonable
restriction on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under art 19 (1)(a) of the constitution.

8
Trustees of Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust v Govt of NCT of Delhi (2001) Cr LJ 3689 (Del)
9
AIR 1957 SC 620, (1957) Cr LJ 1006 (SC)

7
 DISTURBING RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY

Section 296. Disturbing religious assembly

Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the

performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both.

Ingredients

The essential ingredients of this section are:

1) There must be an assembly which is engaged in the performance of

religious worship or religious ceremony;
2) Such assembly and performance of such ceremony should be lawful;
3) The accused must cause disturbance to such assembly;
4) The accused must do so voluntarily.

This section affords special protection to congregational worship. It does not

cover individual worship. A religious procession is regarded as a lawful assembly
unless it interferes with the ordinary use of the streets by the public or contravenes
any rules or regulations.
Where a mosque situated on the banks of a highway, passing by in a procession
with music playing loudly at a time when prayers are going on will be an offence
as such music would necessarily disturb the congregation engaged in prayer.10

10
Public Prosecutor v Sunku Seethalah (1910) 11 Cr LJ 400(Mad), (1910) ILR 34 Mad 92.

8
 PROPOSALS FOR REFORM
The Fifth Law Commission has endorsed the propriety of the chapter. However, it
expressed three reservations about s 295A:
i. It is ‘needlessly hedged in too many conditions’;
ii. The word ‘malicious’ looses its import when the same section has used
the word ‘deliberate’ for indicating equally reprehensible state of mind of
the wrongdoer; and
iii. s 295A, which refers to ‘outraging’ of religious feeling of ‘a class’, in the
backdrop of ss 297 and 298, which refer to ‘wounding’ of religious
feeling of ‘any person’, seems to accomplish ‘any particular point’ by
using a different expression, ie, outraging. The Law Commission
therefore, recommended that requisite mens rea for sec 295A be
indicated by the words ‘with deliberate intention of wounding the
religious feelings’.11

The text of the proposed revised s 295A runs as under:

295A. Deliberate acts intended to wound religious feelings of any class by

insulting its religion or religious beliefs.- Whoever, with the deliberate intention
of wounding the religious feeling of any class of citizen 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 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.

11
Law Commission of India, ‘Forty-Second Report: The Indian Penal Code’, Government of India, 1971, para 15.2.

9
It seems that neither the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 1978 nor the
Fourteenth Law Commission has taken cognizance of the proposal for reform
suggested by the Fifth Law Commission.

10
 CONCLUSION

Religion, which is thought to guide correctly and ethically our all activities in every aspect, in
today’s world has become a topic of discussion. It is said that any religion, if properly
understood or interpreted, can pave the way for the survival, sustenance and development of
everyone including followers of other religions and other creatures also and, if misunderstood or
wrongly interpreted, can lead to destruction of this universe. The essence of the offence under
this section is voluntarily causing disturbance to a religious assembly and it is immaterial
whether the intention of the accused to disturb is due to religious animosity or any other cause.

The Indian Penal Code does punish “hate speech” (insults or attempts to insult the religion or
the religious beliefs of any citizen with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage their
religious feelings). These laws are applied to all religions including Hinduism, Sikhism,
Christianity and Islam.

Religion plays an important role in the society creating a bond that binds the individuals
together. the term religion is not defined in the constitution and indeed it is a term which is
hardly susceptible to any rigid definition. The Supreme Court has defined it broadly. Religion is
a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily. The state can have no
religion of its own. It should treat all religions equally.

11