Feb, 2006 12 cartoons on Islam and prophet Mohammad depicting him wearing a turban which

turns out to be a bomb with a lit fuse and carrying message starkly and without qualification that
Islam is a terrorist and sexiest religion in the world was published on one of the famous Danish
newspaper- Jyllanch-Posten

Feb 2006 the movie The Da Vinci Code was released in India which was based on the novel of
the same name and which raises a very controversial and sensitive matter of Christian faiths that
Christ and Mary Magdalene -one of his disciple were married and began a bloodline that continued
through the centuries. It depicts Christianity as the biggest cover-up in history.

Feb2006, M.F.Hussains painting were displayed at the Asia house, UK. The Poster displayed here
mainly depicts the Mother India as naked and the Hindus deities (Sita, Lakshmi, Saraswati) as nude.

Expression of Art should be like a lily flower related to the ground, takes the water from ground, buds
flower in the open atmosphere and purify the whole world but is still related to ground. - - Swami
Vivekanand

Restriction on freedom of expression

Of all the pains in this world the pain which hurt most and which last long is the religious pain that
is felt by believers of every cast when what they believe in it is insulted. That is more so because
religion and belief in religious deities and rituals is more a matter of blind faith then logic. And when
the matter comes in Indian context the degree of hurt reaches to its peak. Here people are ready to
die and ready to kill anybody merely on a rumor that there is a threat on there religion. Be it a Hindu,
a Muslim, a Sikh or a Christian everyone is seemed to be conscious that there religious beliefs is not
challenged by any other cast. The situation become complex when anybody intentionally or
mistakenly does any act that anyhow affects some sentiments of any religion and then the dirty play
starts. People forgets that they are human first and there basic duty is to practice brotherhood and
uplift humankind then fighting for their age-old religious sentiments.

The potent source of restriction on freedom of expression is its criminal law, which deals with
offences against religion and punishes certain kind of expression which may be loosely called hate-
speech, speech or writing which promote enmity, hatred, ill-will, or disharmony between different
religious, racial or linguistic groups or castes or communities are prohibited by S.153A of the Indian
Penal Code. A related provision, S.153B prescribes the making or publishing imputation or assertion
which imply that any class of person cannot by reason of their being members of any religious
racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to the
constitution of India as by law established to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.

A special Bench of the Bombay High Court in Gopal (1969)72 Bom LR 871(SB) has held that under
this section it is enough to show that the language of the writing is of a nature calculated to promoted
feeling of enmity and hatred for a person must be presumed to intend to the natural consequences
of his act.
These section which were enacted by the British during colonial rule were not inspired by any
antipathy to free speech as such. The rationale underlying the provision is the maintenance of public
peace and tranquility in a country like India where religious passion can be easily aroused and
inflamed.

IPC also deals with offences relating to religion under a separate chapter, i.e. Chapter XV(S.295-
298). The crux of the chapter being to prohibits any kind of act which hurt some religious sentiments
and promotes any further action resulting against the public order.

S.298 prohibits the utterance of any word or any sound or making any gesture by any person with
the deliberate and malicious intention of wounding the religious feeling of any person. S.295A
protects the religious belief of a class as a whole from the deliberate and malicious intention of
anyone to outrage the religious feeling of the class.

The background and history of S.295A, which punishes insult to religion, are interesting. It was
enacted in 1927 after the judgment of the Lahore High Court in what is popularly known as
the Rangila Rasool case. A tract, Rangila Rasool was published in which there were offensive
reference to the Prophet Mohammads life The High Court took the view that the prosecution which
was launched under section 153A was not legally sustainable because the writing could not cause
enmity or hatred between different religious groups though it was certainly offensive to the Muslim
Community. However it is different that the man who wrote Rangila Rasool and portrayed the
Prophet as an immoral person was murdered in the court.

The constitutionality of S.295A was questioned before the Supreme Court in the case of Ramji lal
Modi v state of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC620. The SC upheld its validity on the ground that the
restriction imposed on freedom of expression by the section was reasonable and was covered under
the head of public order. The reasoning of the court was that the section didi not penalize any and
every act of insult to religion or the religious belief of a class of citizen but was directed to acts
perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feeling of a class of
citizens.

However the courts in India have tried to balance the values underlying freedom of expression with
the maintenance of peace and order. The trend of the decision is that criticism of a religion and
religious belief is permissible it does not descend to vile or vituperative abuse of any religion or pts
founder. One may legitimely criticize the tenets of any religion and characterize them as illogical or
irrational or historically incorrect. But it is not permissible to condemn the founder of any religion as
venerates or immoral person or frauds or charlatans.

Conclusion
Iura inventa metu iniusti fateare necesse est

Law was brought into the world; says Hobbes, for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of
particular men in such manner as they might not hurt but assist one another and join together
against a common enemy.

The object of art is not to deprave or corrupt morals but to elevate the mind M Nasrullah, 1954
(Akbar Padamsee case). Freedom of expression certainly permits criticism of religious belief. It does
not confer a fundamental right to abuse any religion or its founder. If broadly seen it is not the
dispute that causes hatred it is hatred that perpetuates the dispute. So why the hatred? The
underlying cause is religion. Priests are the self-appointed agents of god. To establish authority they
stress on rituals. Rituals sharpen religious division. The solution doesnt lie in discarding religion but
in rediscovering it. While propounding ones religion one have to see the rights of the other to
express themselves and mere comment on the religion should not be treated as any threat to the
religion. While on the other side a person while practicing his right of expression must keep in mind
the sentiments of other people.

Bibliography
1. Bulls Eye, Rajenda puri, Outlook March 06, 2006.
2. How the court defend art, Outlook, May05, 2006.
3. The ideology of piety, Michael Neumann.
4. Right to freedom of expression and protests, Soli Sorabjee.
5. Indian penal Code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal.
6. Interpretation and Enforcement of Fundamental Rights, D.J.De.
7. Holland on Jurisprudence, N.R Madhavan Menon.