July 29, 2012
His Lordship Justice P. V. Reddi
The Honourable Chairman of Nineteenth Law
Commission
The Law Commission of India,
The Law Commission of India,
2nd Floor, the Indian Law Institute
Building
(Opp. to Supreme Court), Bhagwandas Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
Honourable Sir,
Subject: Misuse of Blasphemy laws
(sec 295A, 298 & 153A of IPC) against Freethinkers and Rationalists who
attempt to expose the falsity of claims made by god men/ religious institutions
in a spirit of scientific temper and free inquiry
We write to you as a group of deeply concerned
citizens seeking your immediate intervention at
the gross and rampant misuse of Indian blasphemy
laws (ie section 295A, 298 and 153A of the Indian penal code 1860) against Freethinkers
and Rationalists attempting to expose the falsity of claims made by godmen and
religious institutions.
Your goodself is aware that Section 295A of the
Indian Penal Code punishes attempts to insult the religious beliefs of any
citizen with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage their
religious feelings. However it is to be
noted that “deliberate and malicious intention” is not clearly defined
or explained till date either by the particular section or by the Judgment of
High courts or Supreme Court. Such a clear
anomaly in law is misused by Religious groups who file criminal cases for
prosecution of Freethinkers and Rationalists who have no intention to insult
the religion but merely to expose the falsity of ‘Divine claims’ made by
godmen/ religious figures in a spirit of scientific temper and free inquiry.
Your goodself is also conscious of the fact that development
of scientific temper and free inquiry forms a part of fundamental duty of every
citizen of India under Article 51A(h) contained in part IVA of the constitution
which according to the Supreme Court[1]
are “obligatory for every citizen and state should strive to achieve the same
goal”.
Your goodself is also cognizant that the Supreme
Court[2]
placed limitations on 295A stating that it “does not penalize any and every act
of insult to or attempt to insult the religion” but it only punishes “the
aggravated form of insult to religion perpetrated with deliberate and malicious
intention”. Further the High Court[3]
again reiterated that “deliberate intention may be inferred only when offending
words were spoken without good faith”.
In similar context while interpreting section 298,
it was also re-iterated by the Orissa High court[4]
that “mere invasion of civil rights does not amount to wounding the religious feelings
of other persons unless it can be inferred that words uttered have deliberate
intentions to wound the religious feeling of other persons”.
However this has not stopped the Police
administration from prosecuting freethinkers and Rationalists consistently by
gross and rampant misuse of the above law.
In the recent case Mr. Sanal Edamaruku, a famous rationalist and
Freethinker faces the prospect of three years in prison. His crime was to expose that the little drops
of water that began to drip from the feet of the statue of Jesus nailed to the
cross on the church were not the “divine tears of Jesus” but by a filthy water
of a blocked drain pushed up through a scientific phenomenon called capillary
action.
Such an action by the police administration is not
only an abuse of section 295A and section 298 of the Indian Penal code but also
a flagrant & contemptuous violation of Individual freedom of speech and
expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.
It is admitted that Fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression is “not absolute and unfettered”. It is subject to reasonable restrictions and
that individual liberty must yield to common good. But common good is surely not attained by
prosecuting Freethinkers and Rationalist by stifling their voices when they
seek to expose the so called godmen in Public Interest. The Supreme Court[5][6]
has also held that restrictions would be called “reasonable restriction” only
“there is proper balance between rights of the Individual and the rights of the
society”. It can be argued that the
rights of the society are well served when Freethinkers and Rationalists expose
the godmen and their divine phenomenon to protect the gullible public from
being deceived in the name of religious miracles.
It is also argued that the Right to freely profess
and practice ones religion is also subject to reasonable restrictions is not
absolute under the constitution and is subject to public order, morality and
health including contravention of any law including social, economic &
political regulations[7]. However, it is unfortunate to note that the
police administration on one hand prosecutes the Freethinkers and Rationalists
under Blasphemy laws for exposing fake religious miracles and on the other hand
does not initiate action under section 420 of IPC for cheating the public.
In light of the above discussion, we seek your
intervention to prevent this unconscionable, unscrupulous travesty of justice
and gross violation of Fundamental Rights of Free Speech guaranteed under the
Constitution of India and rampant abuse of section 295A, 298 of IPC against the
Freethinkers and Rationalists by the Police Administration.
We appeal to your goodself in public
interest for the below action:
A) To form a study group to re-examine the
blasphemy laws of India and recommend changes, amendment to the Act including
executive instructions as is necessary to reflect the changed socio-political
scenario of the modern Indian society.
B) To recommend changes to the Blasphemy
laws “as is necessary” to ensure that Freethinkers and Rationalists are not
arbitrarily& capriciously punished while exposing the claims of godmen/
religious institutions in a spirit of free inquiry& scientific temper and
in exercising their fundamental duty as required by the constitution.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Members
of Nirmukta India
www.nirmukta.com
Copy
to:
Honourable Salman Khurshid,
The Union Minister of Law and Justice,
Government of India,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110
001.
[1] Rural Litigation vs state of UP AIR 1987 SC 359(para 20)
[2] AIR 1957 SC 620
[3] Narayana das vs state ILR 1952 CAL 199
[4] Chandra Behra vs Balakrishna AIR 1963
orissa 23
[5] Dwarka Prasad vs state of UP (1954) SCR 803
[6] Chintaman rao vs state of MP (1952) SCR 759
& State of Maharashtra vs Himmat Bhai AIR 1970 SC 1157
[7] Ratilal vs state of Bombay (1954) SCR 1055
