Letter to Chairman Law Commission

July 29, 2012

His Lordship Justice P. V. Reddi

The Honourable Chairman of Nineteenth Law Commission
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