Balancing Religious Sentiments and Constitutional Freedoms

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• Punjab’s new sacrilege law has reignited debate over the criminalisation of reli­gious offence in a sec­u­lar state.

About

• Recently, the Gov­ernor of Punjab gave his assent to the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act.
  • It has introduced stricter punishment against the sacrilege of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. 
  • Anyone found involved in or supporting the sacrilegious acts can be imprisoned for 10 years to life and fined between 5 lakh and 25 lakh rupees.
• Sacrilege under the Act: It cov­ers any “wil­ful and delib­er­ate” act of desec­ra­tion through phys­ical dam­age, deface­ment, burn­ing, tear­ing or theft of the Guru Granth Sahib and also extends sac­ri­lege equally to acts com­mit­ted in speech, writing and visual representation or through elec­tronic means. 

What is Sacrilege? 

• Sacrilege literally means treating a religious object or place without the respect that it deserves.
  • It traditionally concerns conduct i.e. physical desecration or violation of something considered sacred.
• Blasphemy concerns expression, including contemptuous or irreverent speech, writ­ing or imagery about a god, a prophet, a scripture or a set of beliefs.
• Legal Stand: Sec­tion 298 of the Bhar­atiya Nyaya San­hita pun­ishes injur­ing or defil­ing a place of wor­ship with intent to insult a reli­gion, a sac­ri­lege­ type offence aimed at con­duct.
  • Sec­tion 299 of the BNS pun­ishes delib­er­ate and mali­cious insult to reli­gious beliefs by words, signs or vis­ible rep­res­ent­a­tion. 

Constitutional Take

• Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of speech): The law can be challenged under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
  • Criminalising words, writings, signs or electronic representations can have a chilling effect on legitimate criticism, academic discussion, satire and social reform.
  • The State would have to demonstrate that the restriction falls within one of the grounds specifically listed under Article 19(2).
• Article 19(2) (Public order is not the same as religious hurt): The State could argue that the law is necessary to maintain public order, particularly given Punjab’s history of sacrilege-related tensions.
  • However, the constitutional question would be whether offence to religious sentiments is sufficient to constitute a threat to public order.
• Article 14 (Equality and non-arbitrariness): Expressions such as “disrespect” or conduct “of a nature to hurt religious feelings” may raise concerns about how objectively the offence can be determined.
  • Criminal law normally requires sufficient clarity so that citizens can reasonably understand what conduct is prohibited.
• Principle of Proportionality: A punishment extending to life imprisonment for physical desecration would invite scrutiny under the principle of proportionality.
  • The Court could examine the nature of the prohibited conduct, the harm caused, intention, availability of less restrictive measures and the severity of punishment.

Way Ahead

• While criminalising deliberate physical desecration of sacred objects may be justified to protect public order and religious freedom, extending criminal liability to expression risks infringing Article 19(1)(a). 
• A constitutionally sound approach would therefore require clear definitions, proof of deliberate and malicious intent, proportionality in punishment, and equal application across religions, consistent with India’s secular and democratic constitutional framework.

Source: TH