際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Acts promoting disharmony

Download as PPTX, PDF
N
Nivedita Jha

This document summarizes several sections of the Indian Penal Code related to promoting disharmony: Section 153A deals with promoting enmity between groups; Section 153B penalizes assertions prejudicial to national integration; Section 295A deals with acts intended to outrage religious feelings; and Section 505 deals with statements causing public mischief. It provides details on the scope and constitutional validity of these sections. It also discusses proposed reforms such as recommendations to tighten laws around hate speech through amendments adding new sections to the IPC.

Convert to study materialsBETA

Transform any presentation into ready-made study materialselect from outputs like summaries, definitions, and practice questions.

1 of 13
Download to read offline
ACTS PROMOTING DISHARMONY -Submitted by NIVEDITA JHA 16IP63029
Acts promoting disharmony are primarily incorporated in these chapters across the Indian Penal Code 1. Section 153A deals with promoting enmity between different societal groups and performing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony 2. Section 153B penalises the making of imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration; 3. Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs 4. Section 505 deals with statements conducing to public mischief.
SECTION 153-A Section 153A was originally introduced in the IPC in the year 1898 then amended in 1969 and 1972 Essential Ingredients of Section 153-A I. Whoever by (a) words, either spoken or written; or (b) by signs; or (c) by visible representations; or (d) otherwise; II. Promotes or attempts to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; III. Between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; IV. On grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground; or V. The act may be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different groups as outlined above, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquility or: VI. Organizes any exercise, movement drill or other similar activities in order to train or use of force or violence against any of the groups outlines in (iii) above.
Scope of Section 153A The section is not confined to the promotion of feelings of enmity on grounds religion only. It takes in promotion of such feelings on other grounds such as race of place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. However, a fair and rational criticism of religious tenets, couched in temperate or restrained language will not be punishable .In Lalai Singh v State of UP (1971 Cr U 1773 (All) it was held that it was perfectly legitimate to criticise Hinduism of the doctrine of untouchability and the discriminatory caste practices followed by it, and the reprehensible treatment meted out to the castes considered lower in the caste hierarchy.
In Babu Rao Patel v State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1980 SC 763,the accused had published an article in a newspaper that militant minorities thrive on communalism and specifically referred to Muslims generally as a 'basically violent community. The Supreme Court, held that the article, in the guise of political thesis or historical truth, actually promoted feelings of enmity, hatred and ill will between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Therefore, the Court held these essential requirements for proving the offence can be set out as below: It is not necessary to prove that as a result of the objectionable matter, enmity or hatred was in fact caused between the different classes. It is not necessary to prove or establish intention to promote enmity and so on. It is sufficient, if it is shown that the language of the writing is of a nature calculated to promote feelings of enmity or hatred. For falling within the scope of the section, must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on stray or isolated passages for proving the charge For judging what are the natural or probable consequences of the writings it is permissible to take into consideration the class of readers for whom it is primarily meant, as also the state of feelings between the different classes or communities at relevant time
Constitutional Validity of Sec 153-A The constitutional validity of the provison was challenged in Shiekh Wajih Waddin v State of Uttar Pradesh (1963). Upholding the constitutional validity Court said The section seeks to punish only a.) acts with tendency to promote enmity or hatred b.)acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony which have tendency to disturb public tranquility.These limitations are in the interest of public order and a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(2).
SEC 153-B Section 153B was introduced in the IPC only in 1972, in the context of increased communal and caste tensions erupting in different parts of the country, which threatened not just the peaceful relations between and amongst different communities and groups of people, but also the integrity of the country itself. 153-B deals with the offence of imputations and assertions etc. which are prejudicial to national integration.
SECTION 295-A The provision is basically for blasphemy prohibition. Malicious Intention has to be inferred from the circumstances having due regard to the setting ,background and connected facts.-(Baba Khalil Ahmed v State (1960)). Truth is generally not considered to be an absolute defence in respect of Section 295A although the general understanding is that what counts is not just the substance of ones words but also their tone. Sec.95 of Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to state government to forfeit any such newspaper, book and document.
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF 295-A In Ram Lal Ji Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh (1957) the provision was challenged as ultra vires as violative of fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(2). Upholding the constitutional validity Court ruled that S.295-A is enacted in the interest of public order and it penalises only deliberate and malacious insult outraging religious feelings .It excludes from its purview insults offered unwittingly and carelessly
SECTION 505 The section and deals with the dissemination of false and mischievous news with intent to create public disturbances. There are two essential dimensions to the section: 1. Situations in which the publication is likely to cause mutiny amongst soldiers, army men and navy persons; 2. Where the publication is likely to cause commotion amongst the public, inducing someone to commit an offence against the state or public tranquillity. In Manzar Sayeed Khan v State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court, ruled that merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either s 153A or s 505(2), stressed that the effect of words must be judged from the standards of a reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds.
In Bilal Ahamad Kaloo v State of Andhra Pradesh 1997, the main distinction between ss 153A and 505(2) was observed. It was held that while publication of the words or expression is not necessary for an offence under s 153A, such publication is a sine qua non for s 505(2). The constitutional validity of ss 505 (and 124A), IPC, as violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression was questioned in Kedar Nath v State of Bihar 1962. Court ruled 'It is manifest that each one of the constituent elements of the offence under Section 505 has reference to, and a direct effect on, the security of the State and public order'. The court thus declared that the section did not exceed the bounds of reasonable restriction on the right of freedom of speech and expression.
Proposed Reforms Supreme Court of India in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan Vs Union of India 2014 directed the Law Commission of India to look into issue of hate speeches being made by politicians and to consider framing guidelines to prevent provocative statements. Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report, has come up with a slew of recommendations to tighten noose around hate speech PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN IPC Keeping the necessity of amending the penal law, a draft amendment bill, namely, The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2017 suggesting insertion of new section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation violence in certain cases) is annexed as Annexure-A for consideration of the Government.
Acts promoting disharmony

More Related Content

Acts promoting disharmony

  • 2. Acts promoting disharmony are primarily incorporated in these chapters across the Indian Penal Code 1. Section 153A deals with promoting enmity between different societal groups and performing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony 2. Section 153B penalises the making of imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration; 3. Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs 4. Section 505 deals with statements conducing to public mischief.
  • 3. SECTION 153-A Section 153A was originally introduced in the IPC in the year 1898 then amended in 1969 and 1972 Essential Ingredients of Section 153-A I. Whoever by (a) words, either spoken or written; or (b) by signs; or (c) by visible representations; or (d) otherwise; II. Promotes or attempts to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; III. Between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; IV. On grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground; or V. The act may be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different groups as outlined above, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquility or: VI. Organizes any exercise, movement drill or other similar activities in order to train or use of force or violence against any of the groups outlines in (iii) above.
  • 4. Scope of Section 153A The section is not confined to the promotion of feelings of enmity on grounds religion only. It takes in promotion of such feelings on other grounds such as race of place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. However, a fair and rational criticism of religious tenets, couched in temperate or restrained language will not be punishable .In Lalai Singh v State of UP (1971 Cr U 1773 (All) it was held that it was perfectly legitimate to criticise Hinduism of the doctrine of untouchability and the discriminatory caste practices followed by it, and the reprehensible treatment meted out to the castes considered lower in the caste hierarchy.
  • 5. In Babu Rao Patel v State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1980 SC 763,the accused had published an article in a newspaper that militant minorities thrive on communalism and specifically referred to Muslims generally as a 'basically violent community. The Supreme Court, held that the article, in the guise of political thesis or historical truth, actually promoted feelings of enmity, hatred and ill will between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Therefore, the Court held these essential requirements for proving the offence can be set out as below: It is not necessary to prove that as a result of the objectionable matter, enmity or hatred was in fact caused between the different classes. It is not necessary to prove or establish intention to promote enmity and so on. It is sufficient, if it is shown that the language of the writing is of a nature calculated to promote feelings of enmity or hatred. For falling within the scope of the section, must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on stray or isolated passages for proving the charge For judging what are the natural or probable consequences of the writings it is permissible to take into consideration the class of readers for whom it is primarily meant, as also the state of feelings between the different classes or communities at relevant time
  • 6. Constitutional Validity of Sec 153-A The constitutional validity of the provison was challenged in Shiekh Wajih Waddin v State of Uttar Pradesh (1963). Upholding the constitutional validity Court said The section seeks to punish only a.) acts with tendency to promote enmity or hatred b.)acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony which have tendency to disturb public tranquility.These limitations are in the interest of public order and a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(2).
  • 7. SEC 153-B Section 153B was introduced in the IPC only in 1972, in the context of increased communal and caste tensions erupting in different parts of the country, which threatened not just the peaceful relations between and amongst different communities and groups of people, but also the integrity of the country itself. 153-B deals with the offence of imputations and assertions etc. which are prejudicial to national integration.
  • 8. SECTION 295-A The provision is basically for blasphemy prohibition. Malicious Intention has to be inferred from the circumstances having due regard to the setting ,background and connected facts.-(Baba Khalil Ahmed v State (1960)). Truth is generally not considered to be an absolute defence in respect of Section 295A although the general understanding is that what counts is not just the substance of ones words but also their tone. Sec.95 of Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to state government to forfeit any such newspaper, book and document.
  • 9. CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF 295-A In Ram Lal Ji Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh (1957) the provision was challenged as ultra vires as violative of fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(2). Upholding the constitutional validity Court ruled that S.295-A is enacted in the interest of public order and it penalises only deliberate and malacious insult outraging religious feelings .It excludes from its purview insults offered unwittingly and carelessly
  • 10. SECTION 505 The section and deals with the dissemination of false and mischievous news with intent to create public disturbances. There are two essential dimensions to the section: 1. Situations in which the publication is likely to cause mutiny amongst soldiers, army men and navy persons; 2. Where the publication is likely to cause commotion amongst the public, inducing someone to commit an offence against the state or public tranquillity. In Manzar Sayeed Khan v State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court, ruled that merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either s 153A or s 505(2), stressed that the effect of words must be judged from the standards of a reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds.
  • 11. In Bilal Ahamad Kaloo v State of Andhra Pradesh 1997, the main distinction between ss 153A and 505(2) was observed. It was held that while publication of the words or expression is not necessary for an offence under s 153A, such publication is a sine qua non for s 505(2). The constitutional validity of ss 505 (and 124A), IPC, as violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression was questioned in Kedar Nath v State of Bihar 1962. Court ruled 'It is manifest that each one of the constituent elements of the offence under Section 505 has reference to, and a direct effect on, the security of the State and public order'. The court thus declared that the section did not exceed the bounds of reasonable restriction on the right of freedom of speech and expression.
  • 12. Proposed Reforms Supreme Court of India in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan Vs Union of India 2014 directed the Law Commission of India to look into issue of hate speeches being made by politicians and to consider framing guidelines to prevent provocative statements. Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report, has come up with a slew of recommendations to tighten noose around hate speech PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN IPC Keeping the necessity of amending the penal law, a draft amendment bill, namely, The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2017 suggesting insertion of new section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation violence in certain cases) is annexed as Annexure-A for consideration of the Government.