Promotion of Enmity: Section 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505 of Indian Penal Code

The Indian penal Code (IPC) has several Sections that make the promotion of enmity in society a criminal offence. These sections include Section 153A, Section 153B, Section 295A, and Section 505. However, there is a growing criticism of these sections due to their misuse against creative, literary, and academic work in the country.

What is Section 153A of IPC?

Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offence of promoting disharmony, enmity or feelings of hatred between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. The offence is a cognizable offence and the punishment for the same may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. However, the punishment of the offence committed in a place of worship is enhanced up to five years and fine.

What is Section 153B of IPC?

Section 153B of the IPC safeguards the interests of “class of persons” and above all the “national integration” by providing punishment against imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration.

What is Section 295A of IPC?

Section 295A of the IPC is a variant of ‘blasphemy law’. It allows punishing of any deliberate and malicious acts that are intended to insult the region or religious beliefs of certain class of citizens. The offence under Section 295A is cognizable and a nonbailableand non-compoundableoffence.The police are authorized to arrest a person charged under Section 295A with a warrant.

What is Section 505 of IPC?

Section 505 of the IPC is aimed to check and punish the spreading of false and mischievous news intended to upset the public tranquility. The offence shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both.

What is the criticism against these Sections?

These Sections of IPC have been criticised on the ground that they are misused to encroach upon fundamental right of freedom of speech even when a person expresses conflicting viewpoint.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution lays down that all citizens of India shall have freedom of speech and expression but the right is not absolute. It is restricted by the Article 19(2), which says that nothing prevents the State from making any law in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Along with their misuse, the log-time taken for criminal cases to be heard and decided in India makes a case for reforming or repealing of the law urgently. Since the parliament has no intention of reforming the law, only the judiciary can declare these Sections as unconstitutional.

But there is a significant problem with respect to Section 295A. In Ramji Lal Modi v State of UP (1957) case, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Section 295A. It means that only a seven-judge bench of Supreme Court can overrule Ramji Lal Modi, and strike down the law. There are enough good arguments, in law, for the court to revisit and reconsider the Ramji Lal Modidecision. In Ramji Lal Modi case, the court upheld the constitutional validity of the section based on the ‘reasonable restriction’ allowed under Article 19(2) of the constitution. The court gave wider ambit to the phrase ‘in the interests of’, and allowed the state to make laws that bore some relation to maintaining public order.

However, it was argued before the court that in order for a law to be a reasonable restriction upon the freedom of speech, it must need to be limited to situations where there was a degree of proximity between the proscribed speech, and the possibility of public disorder. This argument was rejected by the court in Ramji Lal Modi case. But the court later refined the test. It held that only speech that led to ‘incitement to imminent lawless action’ could be punished. In the famous Shreya Singhal judgment, the Supreme Court distinguished between ‘advocacy’ and ‘incitement’, and held that laws restricting free speech would have to be narrowly tailored.

The free speech has to be balanced with other requirements for democracy to work. There is an urgent need to recast these sections on the model of hate speech laws of Canada, South Africa, and European Union with the need to protect the rights of scholars, authors, artists and academia in the country.