Running head: 1

B.A. L.L.B. (Hons.)

General English

Topic: Publication of Charlie Hebdo Cartoons

SUBMITTED TO:
PROF. RAKESH NAMBIAR

SUBMITTED BY:
SHIVANSH SHUBHAM
DIVISION- A
ROLL NO.: A027
B.A. L.L.B (Hons.)
2021-2026
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 FACT OF THE CASE 4

3 RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS 5

4 LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED 8

5 ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE BAN 9-10

6 COUNTER ARGUMENTS 11

7 CONCLUSION 12

8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 13
 3

INTRODUCTION
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine published in France that contains drawings, jokes, and
news. The journal positions itself as above all secular, skeptical, atheist, far-left-wing, and anti-
racist, publishing satirical and stridently non-conformist essays critical of the extreme right,
religion (Catholicism, Islam, Judaism), politics, and culture.
Terrorists attempted to assassinate the magazine on two occasions, in 2011 and 2015. Both were
said to be in retaliation for the publication of a series of inflammatory Muhammad caricatures. A
total of 12 individuals were murdered in the second of these assaults.
 4

FACT OF THE CASE

1. The 9 February 2006 edition of the magazine aroused debate. The front page featured a
caricature of Muhammad sobbing, along with the caption "C'est difficile d'être aimé par des
cons" ("it's difficult to be liked by jerks") and the title "Mahomet debordé by les intégristes"
("Muhammad overpowered by fundamentalists"). In retaliation, French President Jacques
Chirac condemned "overt provocations" that may inflame emotions. "Anything that puts
another person's convictions at jeopardy, particularly religious convictions," Chirac said. A
complaint was made by the Grand Mosque of Paris, the Muslim World League, and the
Union of French Islamic Organizations (UOIF), alleging racist images in the cartoon version.
In the following publication, a group of twelve writers released an anti-Islamist declaration.
2. The newspaper's office in the 20th arrondissement was firebombed, and the website was
hacked in November 2011. The assaults were allegedly connected to the magazine's decision
to rename the November 3 edition "Charia Hebdo," with Muhammad identified as "editor-in-
chief." The cover, which featured a caricature of Muhammad by Luz (Rénald Luzier) with
the caption "100 lashes of the whip if you don't die laughing," has been making the rounds on
social media for a few days.
3. In September 2012, the magazine published a series of satirical illustrations of Muhammad,
some of which contained nude caricatures of him.
4. On January 7, 2015, two Islamist attackers attacked Charlie Hebdo's Paris headquarters and
opened fire, killing twelve people and injuring eleven more, four of whom were gravely
injured. During the incident, the assailants yelled "Allahu akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic)
and "the Prophet is avenged."
5. On January 17, 2015, Shirin Dalvi, an Indian writer and editor of the Lucknow-based Urdu
daily "Avadhnama," reprinted the front page of a Charlie Hebdo issue on the publication's
front page. Following Pope Francis' words in the aftermath of the shootings on Charlie
Hebdo's offices on January 7 of that year, the artwork was created. This was met with
widespread indignation and censure. Shirin made a general apology in an editorial the next
day, but no one was willing to listen. At least seven FIRs were made against her at various
Maharashtra police stations, indicating that she was being pursued. Her children had to live
with relatives, while she had to live with friends. She was arrested on January 28 and freed
the following day.
6. Dalvi was accused under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code with inciting religious
enmity in any class by deliberately insulting their beliefs. The judge freed her the same day
since the charge was bailable.
 5

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (hereinafter, The Constitution)

Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, 1949, gives every citizen of India the Fundamental
Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. However, this right is not an absolute right.
Article 19(2) of the Constitution states that nothing conferred in Article 19(1) (a) shall prevent
the state to make any law which puts reasonable restrictions due to interests of the
i) sovereignty and integrity of India,
ii) the security of the State,
iii) friendly relations with foreign states,
iv) public order, decency or morality
v) or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Article 25 of The Constitution of India, 1949 guarantees to each of it’s citizens The Freedom of
conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and
propagate religion
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from
making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may
be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions
of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and
carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion
Explanation II In sub-clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a
reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu
religious institutions shall be construed accordingly
 6

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC)

 Section 124A IPC penalises sedition.

 Section 153A IPC penalises ‘promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance
of harmony’.
 Section 153B IPC penalises ‘imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration’.
 Section 295A IPC penalises ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious
feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs’.
 Section 298 IPC penalises ‘uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious
feelings of any person’.
 Section 505(1) and (2) IPC penalises publication or circulation of any statement, rumour or
report causing public mischief and enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 Section 95 empowers the State Government, to forfeit publications that are punishable under
sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 292, 293 or 295A IPC.
 Section 107 empowers the Executive Magistrate to prevent a person from committing a breach
of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably cause
breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity.
 Section 144 empowers the District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other
Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government on this behalf to issue order
in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. The above offences are cognizable. Thus,
have serious repercussions on liberties of citizens and empower a police officer to arrest without
orders from a magistrate and without a warrant as in section 155 CrPC.

JUDICIAL HISTORY / PRECEDENTS

“Persons who take the risk of publication and dissemination of scurrilous and blasphemous
messages are not entitled to get the discretion of the court exercised in their favour”.

The Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man who insulted members of the Islamic
community and the prophet in a Facebook post, stating that the fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression in a secular state is not an absolute license to injure and hurt fellow
citizens' religious feelings, faiths, and beliefs.

Justice R Narayana Pisharadi further stated that social media allows for the mass commission of
crimes and that cybercrime has now become a big menace to society.

Any publication which hurts religious sentiments can be curtailed under article 19(2) on the
grounds of public order, incitement to offence and security of the State. The Supreme Court in
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi1 opined that public order was allied to the public safety and
considered equivalent to security of the State. This interpretation was validated by the First
Constitution Amendment, when public order was inserted as a ground of restriction under
19(2).2
 7

In O. K. Ghosh v. E. X. Joseph3, the Supreme Court held that the standard applied for
restricting article 19(1)(a) is the highest when imposed in the interest of security of the State.
Also, a reasonable restriction under article 19(2) implies that the relation between restriction and
public order has to be proximate and direct as opposed to a remote or fanciful connection.’
In S. P. Mittal v Union of India, it was held - “A Religion has its basic in a system of belief or
doctrines which are regarded as those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual
well being.” Thus the constitution endeavours to protect the person's belief on his religion.
 8

LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED

The major argument for opposing the publication of these cartoons is that they offend the
Muslim community's religious sensitivities and endanger public order and security. In this
instance, the legal problems are as follows:

1. Is it appropriate to prohibit the publishing because it offends the Muslim community's

religious sentiments?

2. Is it true that the publisher has utilized his or her right to freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution?

3. Whether the publication amounts to an offense under Section 295A of The Indian Penal
Code?
 9

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE BAN

1. The publishing of the cartoons has harmed the Muslim community's religious sensibilities by
making disrespectful remarks about Islam's Prophet. The publishing would also have an impact
on law and order since it is a provocative invitation to commit crimes. Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution provides people freedom of conscience as well as the right to freely profess,
practice, and propagate their religion. In India's constitution, the term "religion" is not specified.
However, in Comm. HRE v L. T. Swamia4 and S. P. Mittal v Union of India5, the Supreme
Court reviewed this and concluded that: "A religion is defined by a set of beliefs or doctrines
that adherents believe are beneficial to their spiritual well-being." As a result, the constitution
aims to preserve an individual's religious beliefs. "As a result, religion deserves to be protected,
and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression should not be used to disparage
any faith. If the supreme court is the guardian of the constitution, Article 25 is the sword with
which citizens' religious beliefs are protected.

2. Article 19(1) prohibits the publication and distribution of slanderous and blasphemous
statements (a). Article 19 (2) limits freedom of speech and expression if the ideas stated
endanger:
i) the state's security;
ii) public order;
iii) decency and morality;
iv) incitement to commit an offence.
Charlie Hebdo's cartoons aren't just aimed at terrorist organisations . Some of Charlie
Hebdo's cartoons are extremely offensive and provocative. Earthquake victims, aircraft
disaster victims, migrants and refugees have all been mocked in the cartoons. They also
show a lot of disdain for religious beliefs. One example is the cartoons that included naked
caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, who is revered in Islam as Allah's messenger. As a
result of their lewd and immoral nature, these publications are subject to reasonable limits
under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

3. India is a communally sensitive country, and despite its status as a secular republic, it has a
history of horrific communal riots, and the Indian people are extremely intolerant of religious
ideas and customs. This publication would have major ramifications since it would harm the
sensibilities of one religious group, resulting in communal violence and unrest.

4. The author's publication is subject to prohibition since it violates Section 295A of the IPC as
well as Sections 153A and 153B of the IPC due to its deliberate and intentional attempt to
offend the Muslim community's religious sensitivities. By presenting Islam's Prophet in a
demeaning manner and using disparaging comments in the photo, it openly undermines Islam.
Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code prohibits speech or writing that promotes enmity,
hatred, ill-will, or disharmony between different religious, racial, or linguistic groups, castes,
or communities. Section 153B, which is related, prohibits making or publishing imputations
or assertions implying that "any class of person cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the
constitution of India as established by law to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India"
 10

because they are members of a religious, racial, language, or regional group, caste, or
community.

5. In the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. Union Of India6, Under Section 153A of the IPC, it is
sufficient to prove that the language of the writing is of a kind suited to encourage feelings of
hostility and hatred for a person to be deemed to intend to the natural consequences of his act,
according to a special bench of the Bombay High Court.
 11

COUNTER ARGUMENTS

1. The cartoon definitely ended up hurting the sentiments of the muslim

community because of the inclusion of islam in the depiction of the agenda
of terrorist. The artist could have used a different method or way to explain
the agenda used by the islamic terrorist. this particular cartoon is capable of
creating turmoil in the society and so, this must be banned as the muslim
community constitutes an important part of the society.

2. Even though the religion warrants no protection. There's a set of beliefs that
is different for every religion and criticizing the same would definitely lead
to anger and frustration amongst the followers of that particular religion
because of their belief system. Due to the freedom to profess, practice and
propagate the religion of one's choice, people professing islam as their
religion would surely be hurt as their freedom is being challenged and their
belief system is being questioned.

3. People generally raise objections on matters that are actually offensive and
capable of hurting the sentiments of any particular group. Good content is
always being appreciated and praised by the audience. Also, the judicial
system of India and the govt. of India is capable enough to analyze and
decide on whether to ban a particular content or not. Content that is negative
and offensive gets hate from people as they deserve.

4. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution ensures that there is some reasonable
restriction on some matters which might be offensive and might lead to
instability in the society. So, there definitely is some need to set bar on
certain content as might harm the society and the peaceful co-existence of
the people of the country as a whole.

5. Criticism comes when there's something really wrong with the work and so,
it is being criticized by people due to the offensive material contained in the
cartoon. Also, publishing the cartoon might signify the respect and
popularity of the artist not its offensiveness or the criticism.
 12

CONCLUSION

In India, the courts have attempted to strike a balance between the ideals that underpin freedom
of expression and the maintenance of peace and order. The decision's overall tone is that while
criticising religion and religious beliefs is permitted, it must not fall into ugly or vituperative
hatred of any religion or its creator. Any religion's teachings may be reasonably criticised as
illogical, irrational, or historically inaccurate. However, condemning the founders of any
religion as venerates, immoral people, frauds, or charlatans is not permitted. Religious
criticism is undoubtedly permissible under freedom of expression. It gives no one the right to
defame any religion or its founder.

The Charlie Hebdo cartoons aren't criticisms; they're plain insults meant to discredit and
dishonour Islam and its Prophet Muhammad, Allah's Messenger. Sections 153A, 153B, and
295A of the Indian Penal Code also apply to the publishing. In view of the reasons presented
and the authority referenced, they should be prohibited from publishing.
 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

● https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53985407

● https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-trial

france.html

●https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-five-years-after-deadly-

terror-attack-why-has-charlie-hebdo-reprinted-caricatures-of-the-prophet-6580382/

●https://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/europe/2015-paris-terror-attacks-fast-

facts/index.html