Critique Of Blasphemous Laws; Effect On Freedom Of Speech And Expression
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
CRITIQUE OF BLASPHEMOUS LAWS; EFFECT ON
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
Akansha Sethi
ABSTRACT
Since the dawn of time, profanity against things sacred, or sacrilege, has been punished with the most severe of punishments. This is also known as “Blasphemy”. In the Bible, Leviticus 24-16 says “Blasphemeth” the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death and all the congregation shall certainly stone him”. The Bible provided for the punishment of the blasphemy by death by stoning. In ancient Greece, the punishment for blasphemy was even provided in the Greek Penal Code, Article 198 which stated that anyone who publicly and maliciously blasphemes the name of the God shall be punished with imprisonment of two years. So, it is evident that the offense of blasphemy was considered a grave offense. In this research I talk about blasphemy in relation to criticism of the sacred based on logic and reason.
Further, I have tried to explain the connection between blasphemy and freedom of speech and expression , and to what extent can the critique of anything sacred be considered as blasphemous and so blasphemous that it restricts a persons right to freedom of speech and expression. I have avoided the use of blasphemy in terms of utter disregard or defamation or sacred things or religion in general. Moreover, this research also aims to identify the role of blasphemous laws in the contemporary times and whether there is an actual need for them or not.
INTRODUCTION
For any State, the right to freedom of speech and expression is as paramount as its sovereignty is at the national level. For the growth of its citizens and consequently the growth of the State, this right is very significant. Freedom of speech and expression is at the very foundation of any democratic State, without this, there can be no democracy. In India, there are no codified blasphemous laws prima facie, but section 295 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class , “section 295A provides for deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, Section 296 talks about Disturbing religious assembly, Section 297 talks Trespassing on burial places, etc. and Section 298 deals with Uttering words, etc.
, with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings. and Article 19 (2) provides reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression which includes restrictions on the statements against any religion. ” Blasphemy laws exist in various countries worldwide, regardless of their religious or secular nature. These laws criminalize acts that show disrespect towards religious beliefs, symbols, or figures considered sacred. Blasphemy can lead to penalties ranging from fines to the death penalty, depending on the country. The problem, when we talk about blasphemy in terms criticizing religion on logic and reason, is that the scope for reasonable dialogue between a critic and atheist is often restricted by labelling the criticism as blasphemy on the first instance.
Similarly, the freedom of speech and expression of the individuals and the citizens are also restricted by regarding their atheistic opinions as sacrilege. For example, Galileo Galilei was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Roman Catholic Church in 1633 for committing heresy, claiming and declaring that the Earth orbits the Sun. The unwillingness to engage in questioning of the things that are considered sacred or religion stems from the blasphemous laws that punish people for criticizing sacred things and labelling them as sacrilege. Blasphemy laws are remarkably prevalent, with seventy-one countries across various regions maintaining such statutes. However, each of these blasphemy laws deviates from internationally recognized human rights principles, particularly the right to freedom of expression.
Notably, the five nations with the most egregious deviations from human rights principles have official state religions.
WHAT DOES BLASPHEMY MEANS ?
The conventional meaning of “blasphemy”, refers to great disrespect shown to God or to something holy, or to something said or done that shows this kind of disrespect. The word has broadened in meaning beyond the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God; it is now also used with the meaning irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable. The inherent meaning of blasphemy is not to be as much considered in this research as its effect on freedom of speech and expression. This research strictly confines the meaning of blasphemy to a speech or expression in written or spoken form that is adverse to the religious values, and even criticizes some of these values on logic and reason, and how such speech or expression is affected due to this adversity.
BLASPHEMOUS LAWS AND IT’S COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH DIFFERENT STATES The roots of blasphemy is from catholic times and it’s not just a concept in India this is practiced all around the globe. Here in this research we will look upon the comparative study of blasphemy in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. INDIA As the introduction of 42nd Amendment the fundamental duties were added in the constitution and so were then term Secularism was introduced in the preamble was also introduced. The term secularism means that the state is not biased towards any religion. This amendment sought to promote equality among all religions and safeguard the freedom to practice ones religion without hindrance. Within the framework of secularism, there is also a provision in the Indian Penal Code that imposes limitations on such practices.
There was another reason to add the laws against blasphemy it was that under Part III that is Fundamental Rights under Constitution provides Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25 to article 28) of constitution which gives freedom to the citizens to practice their religion In 1927, the Indian Penal Code was amended to introduce Chapter XV, known as ;Offences Relating to Religion, with the primary objective of safeguarding the rights of individuals against infringements committed by others. ● “Section 295: If any person intentionally damages, destroys or defiles any religious object deemed to be sacred by followers of any religion in India, including objects other than idols and books is punishable under this section. He shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years or fine, or both.
● Section 295A: if a person maliciously by words spoken or written or signs or by visible representation insults or attempts to insult religious sentiments of any class of citizens of India then he may be punished under this section. A person can be imprisoned for 3 years or fined, or both if charged under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. ● Section 296: if a person intentionally causes disturbance to any lawful religious assembly and ceremonies thereof he shall be punishable under this section and he can be imprisoned for one year or fined or both. ● Section 297: if a person intentionally trespasses any burial place knowing that this act of his may hurt the religious sentiments of any class of citizens is punishable under this section. This provision is said to protect the religious rights of even dead persons.
Punishment under this section is imprisonment up to one year or fine or both. ● Section 298: This is a peculiar provision in this chapter as all the offences under this chapter of Indian penal code are cognizable, bailable, non- compoundable, but offence under this section is compoundable, non-cognizable and non-bailable. Any person, who intentionally utters any words, makes any sound or signs, visible or audible, as the case may be, to the aggrieved, as to hurt the religious feelings of the person, maybe punished under this section. Now it may seem reasonable why it is a compoundable and non-cognizable offence. It is compoundable only by the person whose religious sentiments have been hurt. An offender can be imprisoned for one year or fine or both under this section.
” 1 Case laws of Blasphemy in India Ramji Lal Modi VS State Of Uttar Pradesh2 Ramji Lal Modi, the editor, printer, and publisher of Gaurakshak, a magazine dedicated to cow protection, found himself facing prosecution based on a contentious article published in the November 1952 issue. The article led to charges against Modi under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which deemed the intentional insult of a religion as a punishable offense. The lower courts, after determining that Modi had wilfully outraged the religious sentiments of Muslims, declared him guilty and convicted him. However, Modi appealed the decision and simultaneously questioned the constitutionality of section 295A.
1 Prashant Tiwari, Blasphemy laws in India and the contemporary world, BLASPHEMY LAWS IN INDIA AND
THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD (July 06, 2023, 11:23 AM)
2 Ramji Lal Modi vs. The State of U.P. 1957 AIR 620
The petitioner contended that any law restricting freedom of speech, as outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, could only be considered valid if the speech in question was likely to directly incite public disorder. The petitioner argued that insulting a religious community does not always lead to public disorder, although it may in some instances. Therefore, the petitioner asserted that a law encompassing both constitutionally protected and unprotected speech should be deemed unconstitutional. However, the Court rejected this argument. It emphasized that the restrictions specified under Article 19(2) are qualified by the phrase in the interests of which has a broader scope than & for the maintenance of; Hence, a law may be enacted in the interests of public order, even if it was not directly intended to maintain public order.
The Court further determined that section 295A of the Indian Penal Code only penalizes deliberate and malicious insults targeted at outraging religious sentiments. Consequently, insults made unwittingly or without malice do not fall within the purview of section 295A. The Court justified this position by asserting that maliciously intended insults have a calculated tendency to disrupt public order. The petitioner also argued that since section 295A is located in Chapter XV of the IPC, which pertains to offences related to religion rather than Chapter VIII dealing with offences against public tranquillity, it does not contribute to the maintenance of public order. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to religious freedom, subject to considerations of public order.
Thus, the Court dismissed the notion that a law criminalizing religiously offensive acts cannot be enacted to prevent public disorder. Therefore, the Court upheld the constitutionality of section 295A of the IPC and affirmed the petitioner conviction. Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs Yerraguntala Shyamsundar3 In the current case, the complaint petition is based on the allegation that the complainant purchased a monthly business magazine and was dissatisfied with the front page, which shows a painting that included the photo of the petitioner with a caption stating God of Big Deals Below the painting, there was a description that resembled some sort of advertisement. According to the complaint petition, the complainant visited the local Police Station on January 22, 2013, to file a First Information Report (F. I. R. ).
The crucial matter to be deliberated upon is whether the accusations presented in the complaint amount to an offense as defined in Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, in the current factual circumstances, the question arises as to whether this Court should transfer
3 Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar 2017 SCC OnLine SC 450
the trial to another location or allow the petitioner the freedom to file an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the purpose of quashing. It is pertinent at this stage to make reference to the provisions outlined in Section 295A of the IPC. The learned counsel subsequently changed his objection and presented it in a slightly different manner. According to the learned counsel, insults directed towards religion or the religious beliefs of a particular group of citizens in India may, in some cases, lead to public disorders. However, in many cases, they may not have such consequences. Therefore, a law that criminalizes insults to religion would encompass both types of insults: those that may result in public disorders and those that may not.
It is argued that while the law may be justified under Article 19(2) of the Constitution for covering the first type of insults in the interest of public order, it would not fall within that clause for covering the remaining type. The argument concludes that if there is a possibility of the law being misused for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution, the entire law should be deemed unconstitutional and void. This argument was difficult to accept as it was based on the wording of the contested section. Firstly, Article 19(2) protects a law that imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of public order, which is broader than ;for the maintenance of public order.
Therefore, if certain activities have a tendency to cause public disorder, a law penalizing such activities as an offense can be considered a reasonable restriction and the interests of public order. Secondly, Section 295A does not penalize every act of insult or attempted insult to a religion or the religious beliefs of a specific group of citizens. It only penalizes those acts of insult or attempts that are perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage the religious feelings of that particular group. Unintentional, careless, or non-malicious insults to religion do not fall within the scope of the section .
This aggravated form of insult clearly has a calculated tendency to disrupt public order, and thus, the section that penalizes such activities falls within the protection of Article 19(2) as a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). Considering the elements of the offense created by the challenged section, it is of the opinion that there is no possibility of this law being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution. In other words, the language used in the section is not broad enough to cover restrictions both within and beyond the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action that affects the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).
Upon careful examination it becomes evident that Section 295A does not encompass every possible act as an offense of insult or attempt to insult a religion or religious beliefs of a specific group of citizens. Rather, it specifically targets acts of insult or attempts to insult that are carried out with a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that particular group. Acts of insult that are unintentional, careless, or lacking any deliberate or malicious intent to outrage religious feelings are not covered by the section. Ms. Liz Mathews, the learned counsel for the appellant, argues that the allegations, when considered in their entirety, fail to satisfy the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, there is no justification for subjecting the appellant to trial.
She further contends that based on the doctrine of parity (as a similar complaint has been quashed), the original proceedings initiated in a different jurisdiction should also be quashed. In this case it was held that Section 295A does not render every act that insults or attempts to insult religious sentiments as criminal. It solely applies to acts that are characterized by intentional and malicious intent. PAKISTAN After its establishment following the partition of India in 1947, Pakistan adopted a set of laws that were inherited from the pre-existing legal system. In the period from 1980 to 1986, General Zia-ul Haq, the military ruler at the time, introduced several amendments to these laws.
His objective was to Islamicize the legal framework and also to legally distinguish the Ahmadi community, which had been declared non-Muslim in 1973, from the majority Muslim population of Pakistan. Throughout the 1980s, the blasphemy laws in Pakistan were introduced and progressively expanded through multiple stages. In 1980, a provision was enacted that criminalized making disrespectful remarks against revered Islamic figures, with a maximum penalty of three years of imprisonment. In 1982, an additional clause was added, specifying life imprisonment as the punishment for deliberate desecration of the Quran, the holy book of Islam. Subsequently, in 1986, a separate amendment was made to address blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad, with the recommended penalties being death or life imprisonment; in that sequence.
Pakistan stands out as one of the rare nations that officially acknowledge the right to information as a constitutional entitlement. This crucial right guarantees individuals the freedom to form opinions and express them without hindrance. It is an essential element of democracy and overall freedom. The guidelines known as the Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content (RBUOC) were developed in response to the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) of 2016. The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA), Pakistan internet regulator, is granted authority by the government to block information that is deemed offensive to Islam glory jeopardizes Pakistan integrity, security, and defence disrupts public order, or violates standards of decency and morals .
These regulations enable the government to enforce bans on popular online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube if they refuse to comply with requests to remove specific content. Furthermore, these regulations mandate that all platforms, including messaging apps like WhatsApp, must share users; decrypted data with authorities without requiring judicial oversight. The PTA is also vested with extensive powers to impose fines. 4 In the context of internet censorship in Pakistan, the primary targets are typically content that is considered blasphemous or poses a potential threat to national security. For example, the prolonged ban on YouTube was primarily prompted by an upsurge in Islamophobic and sacrilegious content circulating on the platform.
There is a significant level of support among the Pakistani population for the notion that those who commit blasphemy should face consequences. However, there exists limited comprehension regarding the disparity between what the religious scripture actually states and how the contemporary laws have been formulated. A prevailing belief held by many individuals is that the laws, as established during the 1980s under the military government of General Zia-ul Haq, directly originate from the Quran and are thus not the product of human legislation. Case laws of Blasphemy in Pakistan Asia Bibi Case5 Noreen, who was around 38 years old at the time, was working as a day labourer in Sheikhupura, a city outside Lahore in eastern Pakistan, in June 2009.
While picking berries in the fields, she offered water to a female co- worker, who objected on religious grounds, considering the touch of a Christian to make the water forbidden (haram) for Muslims. The coworker suggested that Noreen should convert to Islam to cleanse herself of ritual impurity. Noreen response was seen as an insult to Islam, leading to her arrest on charges of blasphemy against the Prophet and the Quran. She has been in prison since then.
4 REFWORLD, https://www.refworld.org/docid/4d5a7009c.html (last visited July 07, 2023)
5 WORLD WATCH MONITOR, https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/the-aasiya-noreen-story/ (last visited July
09, 2023) During the appeal hearing at the Lahore High Court in October 2014, Noreen’s lawyer at the time, Naeem Shakir, argued that the main complainant in the case, a local Muslim cleric named Mohamed Salaam, had not personally heard Noreen commit blasphemy. Shakir further pointed out that Salaam had filed the complaint five days after the dispute between the women. Shakir argued that Salaam’s only explanation for the delay, given during the 2010 trial, was deliberation and consultation, and he highlighted Salaam’s acknowledgment of this fact in court. The other key accuser, Mohamed Imran, who owned the field where Noreen worked, was not present during the altercation as he was away from the village at that time.
Despite these circumstances, the High Court ruled that it had no choice but to uphold the conviction and death penalty due to the existing laws in the country and what it considered to be a poorly presented defence during the trial. However, the court also urged Pakistan’s legislators to draft legislation that would establish stricter criteria for blasphemy convictions, making them more challenging to attain in the future. On October 31, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned Noreen’s conviction that was handed down by the lower court, declaring that the government’s case against her lacked any valid basis.. Noreen and her family have received asylum offers from multiple countries, and it is anticipated that she will depart from Pakistan to seek refuge elsewhere.
Salman Taseer Case6 At the centre of attention is Asia Bibi, a Christian woman whose story has become significant (mentioned above). Asia Bibi’s case gained significant attention throughout the country, largely due to the courageous efforts of pluralistic politicians like Salman Taseer. Taseer publicly advocated for a presidential pardon on behalf of Bibi, granting interviews and even appearing alongside her on national television. Salman Taseer was tragically assassinated for his beliefs executed based on alleged blasphemy charges. Taseer staunchly supported her cause, publicly expressing his belief in her innocence. In a press conference held after her conviction, Taseer began by invoking the name of Allah, emphasizing His mercy and compassion. He disclosed his appeal to then-President Asif Ali Zardari, urging him to pardon Asia Bibi sentence.
Taseer argued that such laws were not present
6 Ed Husain, Explaining the Salman Taseer Murder, EXPLAINING THE SALMAN TASEER MURDER (Jan 7,
2011, 11:09AM) https://www. cfr. org/expert-brief/explaining-salman-taseer-murder during the time of Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, and that the verdict contradicted the principles he stood for. He expressed hope that President Zardari would grant a presidential pardon, emphasizing that he sought clemency rather than a complete reversal of the conviction. Subsequently, Taseer informed CNN that President Zardari had given him assurances that Asia Bibi would indeed be pardoned. A mere six weeks later, on January 4, 2011, Salman Taseer was tragically assassinated by his own bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri, due to Taseer stance on Pakistan’s blasphemy law. This act of violence instantly transformed Qadri into a revered figure among certain segments of society, portraying him as a hero.
Mumtaz Qadri was hanged to death on 29th February 2016,and on his funeral 6 lakh people turned up not only this his grave was turned into shrine on his death anniversary. Assassination of Mahashay Rajpal7 Mahashay Rajpal Malhotra, embarked on his entrepreneurial journey in 1912 by establishing Rajpal and Sons; in Lahore. Through his publishing house, he distributed books in Hindi, English, Urdu, and Punjabi on various subjects encompassing social, political, and religious themes. During this period, in 1923, certain offensive books targeting Hindus were published by Muslim authors. It is important to note that these incidents occurred prior to the introduction of Section 295A in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious sentiments.
In response to the aforementioned provocation, Pandit Chamupati Lal, a close friend of Mahashay Rajpal, authored a short biography of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed titled Rangeela Rasool. This pamphlet took a satirical approach towards depicting the domestic life of Mohammed. Recognizing the sensitive nature of the content, Pandit Chamupati requested Mahashay Rajpal to promise never to disclose the author identity. Initially, the pamphlet was published the content was based on historical accuracy and extensive research of, it sparked outrage among the Muslim community in Lahore. The first edition of the pamphlet sold out swiftly, but within a month of its publication, in June 1924, Mohandas Gandhi expressed condemnation towards the pamphlet in his weekly 7 YOUR VIEWS, https://yourviews. mindstick.
com/view/83433/the-assassination-of-mahashay-rajpal-thepublisher-of-rangeela-rasool (last visited on July 10, 2023). publication, Young India. This indicated that the controversy surrounding the pamphlet had already escalated to a national issue by June 1924. Mohandas Gandhi seemingly disregarded similar provocative articles authored by Muslims, which had incited the response of Rangeela Rasool. However, before the second edition of the pamphlet could be printed, the colonial government imposed a ban on it in late June 1924. By July 1924, Muslims had filed a criminal case against Mahashay Rajpal under Section 153A, accusing him of promoting enmity between groups. During the trial, Rajpal was offered the opportunity to disclose the true author of Rangeela Rasool and be acquitted of all charges. However, he declined the offer.
The legal proceedings lasted for nearly three years, and in May 1927, Mahashay Rajpal was acquitted of all charges. Following the delivery of justice, Muslims across the country erupted in large-scale protests against the verdict. In several instances, riots ensued after provocative speeches delivered by religious leaders. Al-Jamiat, an official body of the Jamiat-Ulaima-i-Hind, warned in an article that under Sharia law, the punishment for insulting the Prophet is death, and it is legally permissible to kill those who commit such an offense. In 1927, the same year in which Mahashay Rajpal was acquitted of all charges, he faced two separate assassination attempts. On April 6th, 1929, a 19-year-old carpenter named Ilm ud din approached Mahashay Rajpal while he was seated in the outer verandah of his shop and viciously stabbed him in the chest eight times.
Blasphemy in Bangladesh “Section 295A of the Penal Code (1860) in Bangladesh imposes imprisonment on individuals who intentionally and maliciously aim to offend religious sentiments. In this past, there were efforts by the Jammat e Islami introduce legislation allowing the death penalty for blasphemy , similar to Pakistan’s law. However , Prime Minister Sheikh Hasiana firmly dismissed such proposals , reiterating that Bangladesh is a secular democracy , Nevertheless, Hasina expressed support for the existing law in its present state. ” 8 Back in 2013, Hefazat, e islam Blangladesh , a group advocating for Islam and consisting of madrassa teachers and students, called for the introduction of law known as the Blasphemy Act in Bangladesh .
A notable legislation that sparked discussions is the Digital Security Act 2018, which includes provision for penalizing the use of technology to offend religious sentiments or 8 END BLASPHEMY LAWS, https://end-blasphemy-laws. org/countries/asia-central-southern-and-southeastern/bangladesh/ (last visited July 15, 2023) beliefs. Additionally, the Special Powers Act 1974 also encompasses measures to address act of religious abuse and their associated punishments.
Bangladesh has experienced numerous incidents of mass lynchings, raising significant concerns about the erosion of respect for the rule of law in the country Case laws of Blasphemy in Bangladesh9 According to Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), a non-governmental organization in Bangladesh focused on human rights, civil liberties, and legal aid, approximately 30 individuals have fallen victim to mob lynchings in various parts of the country up until September of the current year. In 2019, the number of people beaten to death by mobs was 65, with 39 cases reported in 2018,
50 in 2017, 51 in 2016, 135 in 2015, 127 in 2014, and 128 in 2013. Although there has been a
decrease in the frequency of such incidents in recent years, the numbers remain alarmingly high. One notable case of mob lynching involved Nusrat Jahan Rafi, a 19-year-old alim examinee from Sonagazi Islamia Senior Fazil Madrasa in Feni. The incident occurred on April 6, 2019, when she refused to withdraw a sexual harassment case filed by her family against the madrasa principal, Sirajuddaula. In broad daylight, the principal and his associates set her on fire on the madrasa roof. Nusrat suffered severe burns covering 80 percent of her body and passed away four days later. The unsettling question arises as to why a significant number of individuals in the country have become so inclined toward violence. The fear that the person next to you could potentially be your assailant is truly alarming.
When a society cultural fabric weakens or disintegrates, religion often becomes the most potent weapon. The responsibility for this widespread anarchy should lie with the state. In the absence of justice, everyone assumes the role of a judge. In such circumstances, mobs believe it is their right to dispense justice. In a horrific incident that took place on October 29 2020, a mentally challenged Muslim man was brutally beaten to death by a mob in northern Bangladesh. The mob accused him of desecrating the Quran, which they believed had hurt religious sentiments. To compound the tragedy, the incident occurred on the same day as a suspected terrorist attacked a Catholic 9 HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, https://humanrightsfirst. org/library/bangladeshs-status-quo-on-blasphemy/ (last visited July 15, 2023) church in France, resulting in the death of three individuals.
These events unfolded amidst ongoing protests in the Muslim world against cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Shahidunnabi Jewel, a former school employee in Rangpur district, who had recently lost his job due to his mental illness, was identified as the victim in the tragic incident. Jewel, accompanied by another individual named Abbas, visited a mosque in Burimari on a motorcycle and participated in a prayer gathering. An altercation broke out between Jewel and local Muslims, which ultimately led to his lynching. Abida Sultana, the police chief of Lal monirhat district, stated that the allegation of Quran desecration was unfounded. She explained that some individuals claimed Jewel and Abbas were intelligence officers and had information about weapons inside the mosque, which ignited the conflict with local Muslims.
Efforts were made by locals and a member of the union council to intervene and contain the situation by placing Jewel and Abbas inside a house and notifying the police. However, news of the alleged Quran desecration spread rapidly, resulting in a large crowd gathering at the site. Despite pleas for calm from the police and union council members, the mob broke into the house, seized Jewel, and set his body on fire. Upon arriving at the scene with additional police forces, Sultana discovered that Jewel had already been killed, and his body had been set ablaze amidst the chaos. The mob even attacked police vehicles with bricks, creating an unimaginable and horrifying scene. Sultana suspects the involvement of a third party in the incident and mentioned that the police were preparing to file a case of murder and public disorder.
Father Anthony Sen, convener of the Justice and Peace Commission in Dinajpur Diocese, representing the area, condemned the brutality and called for punishment for the perpetrators. He highlighted the lawlessness, lack of education, radicalism, and volatile sentiments that contribute to such violent actions. Father Sen emphasized the need for a thorough investigation into this brutal case and exemplary punishment for those responsible. He also urged the government to introduce legal reforms to combat this culture of violence. INTERNATIONAL AW PRINCIPLES IMPLICATED BY BLASPHEMY LAWS AND INDICATORS TO MEASURE ADHERENCE There are few indicators and corresponding questions to assess adherence to international law principles implicated by blasphemy laws.
These indicators are based on international law principles and norms outlined in core human rights instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). They also draw upon international jurisprudence and general principles of international law. Blasphemy laws directly contradict the core principles of freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief as established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Principle 1: Freedom of Opinion and Expression (Indicator 1: Freedom of Expression)10 The first international law principle examined is the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as outlined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
This principle establishes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and to freely express and seek information and ideas through various forms of media. However, it is important to note that this right is subject to limitations, as stated in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the ICCPR. These limitations allow states to protect other important social goods, such as the rights and freedoms of others, morality, public order, and the general welfare. According to international human rights law, laws that restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including blasphemy laws, are permissible if they meet certain criteria.
These criteria include being provided by law and not based on traditional, religious, or other customary laws, not granting authorities unrestricted discretion, being necessary, proportional, and narrowly tailored, being based on principles that are not derived from any single tradition, and being founded on the universality of human rights and the principle of non- discrimination. Principle 2 Speech and Forum Limitations11 International law recognizes and protects individual; rights to privacy. Additionally, the right to freedom of opinion and expression includes the freedom to seek, receive, and share information and ideas through various forms of media, with certain restrictions.
Blasphemy laws, to different extents, typically prohibit acts, writings, or other forms of speech, and impose restrictions on the platforms or forums in which individuals can express their beliefs or opinions. This indicator focuses on assessing the extent to which a specific blasphemy law limits the forum, whether public or private, in which individuals can express or display their opinions or beliefs, as well as controls on written and/or spoken words.
10 JOELLE FISS AND JOCELYN GETGEN KESTENBAUM, RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE
WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS 7-8 (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2017)
11 Id. at 8-9
EFFECT OF BLASPHEMY ON HUMAN RIGHTS A comprehensive research study has unveiled that the enforcement of blasphemy laws in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is in conflict with the principles established by international human rights law. The study highlights that blasphemy cases in these countries are frequently influenced by intricate interactions of economic, social, and political factors. Regrettably, the misemployment and erroneous application of these laws have wide-ranging and adverse consequences on essential human rights, including freedom of religion, minority rights, freedom of expression, and the overall preservation of the rule of law. Blasphemy cases, as identified in the research, were found to be entangled in intricate webs of societal and political tensions.
Economic disparities, religious rivalries, and social divisions were often major underlying factors that fuelled the emergence of such cases. This indicates that the enforcement of blasphemy laws is deeply intertwined with wider issues of inequality, discrimination, and power dynamics within these societies. Regrettably, the misuse of blasphemy laws has resulted in severe infringements on fundamental human rights. Minority communities, in particular, have suffered disproportionately due to their vulnerability and marginalization. The freedom of religion, has been curtailed as a result of these laws, as they have been employed to target religious minorities and suppress their ability to practice their faith freely. Moreover, the freedom of expression, has been significantly stifled by the misuse of blasphemy laws.
Individuals expressing dissenting views or engaging in critical discussions related to religion or religious practices have often faced severe repercussions, including legal prosecution, imprisonment, or even violence. The implications of the misapplication of blasphemy laws also extend to the rule of law itself. When laws are utilized to target specific individuals or groups based on their beliefs, rather than serving the interests of justice and fairness, it undermines the legitimacy of the legal system and erodes public trust.. While the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides guidelines concerning the permissible restrictions on the manifestation of religion, it stipulates that any such limitations should strictly adhere to the principles enshrined in Article 18 of the ICCPR.
Unfortunately, blasphemy laws, as they are presently applied, undermine the fundamental tenets of the ICCPR and often serve illegitimate purposes. These laws are implemented in a manner that primarily shields the beliefs and practices of the majority religion, while disregarding the rights of religious minority groups. Consequently, religious minorities face disproportionate constraints on their freedom to express and observe their religious convictions. “ The Human Rights Committee, entrusted with the responsibility of interpreting the provisions of the ICCPR, has clarified that the right to freedom of religion extends to both minority and newly established religions, not solely those adhering to the majority or traditional religion in a given country.
However, in country like Pakistan , the governments officially recognize only a limited number of religions while simultaneously prohibiting entire religious sects. Such preferential treatment of certain religions over others inherently discriminates against religious minorities and significantly curtails their rights. ” In order to promote inclusivity, religious harmony, and respect for human rights, it is imperative that states review and reform their blasphemy laws. By doing so, states can foster an atmosphere of tolerance, pluralism, and mutual respect, where individuals of diverse religious backgrounds can coexist peacefully and exercise their right to freedom of religion without fear of persecution or marginalization.
Blasphemy laws are frequently utilized as tools to silence criticism and settle personal or political disputes, which in turn fosters an environment of self-censorship. The rule of law is significantly hampered when courts expedite blasphemy convictions due to fear of reprisals from large demonstrations, thereby obstructing the administration of justice and impeding the rights of the accused to a fair trial. ). Furthermore, courts have imposed blasphemy convictions or increased blasphemy sentences in various countries, such as Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan While there is a margin of appreciation for states in implementing human rights, the analysis conducted in this research demonstrates that every state examined has implemented its blasphemy laws in a manner that far exceeds the permissible boundaries outlined in international human rights law.
Both civilians and authorities extensively misuse these laws, resulting in severe violations of the rights of religious minorities and significant hindrances to the rule of law. Fortunately, there is a global trend of declining criminalization of blasphemy. International human rights actors are shifting their focus away from blasphemy laws and towards combating incitement to hatred. This shift recognizes the importance of protecting all religions without discrimination, prioritizing the protection of individuals rather than specific religions or belief systems, and establishing clear definitions and high thresholds for restricting expression BLASPHEMY AND SECULARISM One area where the secular state has, throughout history, failed to keep itself away from the religious lives of individuals is the law of blasphemy. This is defined, rather simplistically, by St.
Thomas Aquinas as referring to an act meant “to cast insult or abuse at the dignity of our creator” . India has long identified itself as a secular state, promoting the idea that all religions can coexist peacefully within its borders. However, the reality is far from ideal. According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Centre, India has been ranked as the Fourth Worst in the World in terms of religious intolerance among 198 countries analysed. This alarming situation encompasses various aspects such as hate crimes, mob violence, communal violence, religiously motivated terrorism, forceful prevention of religious practices, harassment based on religious dress codes, and violence related to conversion. Religious plurality plays a vital role in India, given its diverse cultural, linguistic, religious, and racial landscape.
Secularism, as an ideology, is crucial in fostering unity beyond religious affiliations. It directs attention away from religion and towards other temporal aspects, aiming to shape the present for a more promising and prosperous future In the political context, secularism refers to a state policy that neither interferes with nor Favors any specific religion when making decisions. It advocates for keeping the state separate from religious influence. While the term ;blasphemy is not commonly used in the Indian legal and constitutional landscape, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does contain a provision that can be loosely associated with an anti-blasphemy law. Section 295-A of the IPC penalizes the act of insulting the religion or religious beliefs of any group of citizens, if such insult is made with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage the religious feelings of that group.
12 Similar to provisions regarding sedition and obscenity, Section 295-A was also challenged in the early years of the Supreme Court, but ultimately upheld by the court, prioritizing social order over civil liberties. In 1957,the author of the magazine Cow-Protection took his case to the Supreme Court, questioning the constitutionality of the section itself. The argument presented was that Article 12 Md Musa Ali, Secularism In India: Concepts, Historical Perspective And Challenges, 1 APJR 119, 120-122 (2015).
19(2) of the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech in the interest of public order. However, Section 295-A extends beyond this scope by criminalizing any speech intended to outrage religious feelings. This broad interpretation grants the state significant discretion in determining what kind of speech may pose a threat to public order and regulating it accordingly. The court ruled that Section 295-A only covers intentional insults and emphasized the calculated tendency of such intentional insults to disturb public order, thus deeming the section constitutional. “History tells us that such laws rarely avert violence, in fact they likely to attract violence”13 Recently, the Punjab Cabinet made a decision to introduce a new section, 295(A), into the Indian Penal Code.
This section states that anyone causing injury or damage to holy books like Shri Guru Granth Sahib, Srimad Bhagwat Geeta, Holy Quran, and Holy Bible with the intention of hurting religious sentiments will be punished with life imprisonment. This raises the question of why such an extraordinary penalty is necessary when Section 295(A) of the IPC already provides for imprisonment of up to three years for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. In Punjab, insulting these specific holy books can now attract a mandatory life sentence, while other insults may result in up to three years of imprisonment. Essentially, this means that insulting a deity may land you in jail, while burning or defaming a holy book can lead to a life sentence. It is important to recognize that every law can be misused.
Those who argue against the law based on potential misuse should remember that any law has the potential to be misused and misapplied. The focus should not be on doing away with laws, but on creating automatic safeguards against their misuse. From the beginning, it has been stated that India is a secular country, and the aforementioned sections of the IPC help maintain its secular nature. Although the IPC predates the constitution, these sections uphold the essence of secularism by equally protecting religious sentiments and criminalizing intentional acts against religious texts. Rather than abolishing or repealing these sections, efforts should be made to prevent their misuse through proper interpretation. The state or the judiciary should only interfere when a speech or expression creates public disorder, not when there is only a remote possibility of it happening.
13 Nikhil Padha, Is Blasphemy Law Maintaining Secularism?, IS BLASPHEMY LAW MAINTAINING
SECULARISM? (Sept. 27, 2018, 10:18 PM), https://www. earlytimes. in/newsdet. aspx? q=243766 NEED FOR ABOLISHING BLASPHEMY ● Freedom of expression is a crucial right for individuals and essential for the functioning of societies, promoting diverse opinions. This right is protected by major international human rights instruments such as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). While most countries are signatories to these conventions, even those that are not have a moral obligation to uphold and protect the right to free speech. Unlike freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief, which is an absolute right, freedom of expression can be subject to limitations under the international human rights framework.
These limitations vary among states and may include restrictions on libel, defamation, incitement to hatred, violence, or discrimination against individuals or groups. However, any restrictions on freedom of expression must adhere to strict legality and proportionality tests, as freedom of expression remains a fundamental right, and limitations should be the exception rather than the rule. In this context, laws prohibiting incitement to hatred or violence do not necessarily violate the right to freedom of expression. However, laws pertaining to blasphemy and religious insult invariably go beyond banning incitement to hatred or violence. Such laws effectively hinder, restrict, or discourage free expression when it involves questioning, criticizing, satirizing, or ridiculing religion.
● While protecting freedom of thought and belief, including religious belief, is important, it is equally crucial to foster an environment where critical discussions about religion can take place. There is no inherent right to be shielded from offense regarding religious sentiments, as religions themselves do not possess rights. Churches and religious groups, like any other societal group, should be open to hearing criticism. Intellectual and cultural progress relies on the free exchange of ideas. Laws prohibiting blasphemy insult to religion not only violate the right to freedom of expression as established by international and domestic human rights laws but also suffer from inherent flaws and subjective application.
A law that aims to prohibit insult or offense to religion or religious individuals can itself be perceived as insulting, offensive, or hurtful to religion or religious persons if it restricts their ability to express their religious views simply because others find their religion offensive. The concept of blasphemy relies on a standard or normative understanding of what constitutes blasphemy against a particular religion. However, even when states attempt to base blasphemy laws on a single religious text, it becomes evident that different sectarian groups within the same religion interpret these texts in diverse ways. Consequently, different groups may consider certain declarations or depictions as blasphemous, while others may disagree or find different declarations or depictions blasphemous.
The ambiguous and subjective nature of blasphemy and insult to religion laws renders them problematic. They are highly susceptible to abuse, being employed to target a wide range of alleged blasphemy, including legitimate criticism or satire of religion, expressing alternative religious views, stating atheism, or in some cases, the accusations are entirely malicious, based on rumours or planted evidence. ● Countries that enforce laws against blasphemy and & insult to religion; often experience an alarming number of incidents characterized by: Intercommunal and mob violence, such as the burning of Christian properties and the murder of Christians by mobs of Muslim individuals in countries like Pakistan, tend to follow baseless rumours of someone having desecrated; the Quran.
● Vigilantism against individuals: Vigilante acts targeting secularist Bangladeshi bloggers have been on the rise in recent years. Islamist groups have called for the prosecution of these ;atheist bloggers; accusing them of writing material that allegedly insults religion and criticizes religious leaders. ● Silencing and persecution of minorities: Countries with laws criminalizing insult to religion, particularly in Islamic states, often discriminate against religious minorities. Ahmadiyya Muslims, despite self-identifying as Muslims, are frequently deemed non- Muslims who are blaspheming Islam. ● By including provisions against insult to religion in the penal code, governments inadvertently lend legitimacy to social persecution against individuals and groups who are accused of offending mainstream religious sensibilities.
Such accusations can be based on mere speech acts, writings, or even the mere existence of these individuals, often fuelled by rumours intentionally spread to incite violence. ASPECTS OF BLASPHEMY FOR RECONSIDERATION There are several aspects of blasphemy laws that could be changed to better align with principles of human rights, freedom of expression, and religious tolerance. Some possible areas of improvement include: ● Narrowing the Scope: Blasphemy laws should be narrowly defined and limited to acts that incite violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on their religious beliefs. The focus should be on protecting individuals from harm rather than shielding religious institutions or beliefs from criticism or dissent.
● Clear Legal Definitions: Blasphemy laws should provide clear and specific definitions of what constitutes blasphemy to avoid ambiguity and potential misuse. ● Protecting Freedom of Expression: Balancing the right to freedom of expression with protection against hate speech or incitement to violence is crucial. Laws should provide clear guidance on distinguishing between legitimate criticism or dissent and speech that genuinely threatens public order or individuals safety. ● Fair and Impartial Application: Blasphemy laws should be enforced impartially, ensuring equal treatment for all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs or backgrounds. ● Reviewing Punitive Measures: The severity of punishments associated with blasphemy offenses should be carefully reviewed and proportionate to the harm caused.
Excessive penalties can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and deter open discussions about religion. ● Promoting Dialogue and Education: efforts should be made to promote dialogue, understanding, and education about different religious beliefs and perspectives. Building a culture of tolerance and respect can help address the underlying causes of blasphemy-related tensions and promote peaceful coexistence. ● International Human Rights Standards: Blasphemy laws should be brought in line with international human rights standards, such as those outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR, ensuring that they respect the principles of freedom of expression, non- discrimination, and religious freedom.
It is important to approach any changes to blasphemy laws with careful consideration, involving various stakeholders, including religious communities, legal experts, human rights organizations, and civil society. The goal should be to strike a balance that respects both freedom of expression and the rights of individuals to practice their religion without promoting hatred or inciting violence.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the topic of blasphemy and its implications is a complex and highly debated issue. Blasphemy Involves expressing contempt or irreverence towards religious beliefs, deities, or sacred objects. The effects of blasphemy vary across different countries and legal systems, and there are diverse perspectives on speech and forum limitations regarding its expression. Some countries have blasphemy laws in place, which criminalize blasphemous speech and actions, aiming to protect religious sensitivities. Supporters argue that these limitations are necessary to maintain social harmony, prevent religious tensions, and safeguard the respect for diverse religious beliefs. However, critics of blasphemy laws contend that they infringe upon the principles of freedom of expression.
They argue that freedom of expression should protect even offensive or controversial speech, including blasphemy. They advocate for open dialogue, intellectual inquiry, and the free exchange of ideas, even if they challenge religious beliefs. The international perspective on blasphemy laws is diverse, with some countries repealing or amending these laws, while others maintain strict enforcement. International human rights standards emphasize the importance of protecting freedom of expression, but there is no consensus on how blasphemy should be addressed within these frameworks. Finding a balance between protecting freedom of expression and addressing religious sensitivities is a challenging task. The ongoing debate seeks to navigate this balance by considering factors such as incitement to violence, hate speech, social harmony, and respect for religious diversity.
The relationship between blasphemy and secularism can be complex. Secularism seeks to create a framework that respects and protects religious freedom while also safeguarding individual liberties, including freedom of speech and expression. In secular societies, individuals have the right to criticize or question religious beliefs and practices without fear of legal repercussions. However, the presence of blasphemy laws in some countries can be seen as a challenge to secular principles, as they may restrict freedom of expression and Favor certain religious beliefs over others. Secularism often advocates for the separation of religion and state to ensure that public policies and laws are not influenced by religious doctrines or preferences.
In this context, blasphemy laws can be seen as encroachments on secular principles, as they involve the state taking a stance on religious matters and potentially impinging on individual freedoms. Critics argue that secularism should prioritize the protection of freedom of expression, including the right to criticize or satirize religious beliefs, while respecting the rights of individuals to hold and practice their religious beliefs. As societies continue to grapple with this complex issue, the discussion around blasphemy laws and their impact on freedom of expression will likely continue to evolve, shaped by cultural, legal, and social contexts, as well as evolving human rights standards.