LAW OF CRIMES
UNIT 4
OFFENCES AGAINST STATE,PUBLIC
TRANQUILITY,RELIGION, PUBLIC HEALTH AND
MORALS
Ms. Akansha Gulati
Assistant Professor
DME law school
[email protected] OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE
Section 121 waging war against the Government of India
waging war - any person taking part in organised armed attack on the
constitutional authorities and the object of attack being subversion of
Government and the establishment of another in its place would be guilty of the
offence of waging War. This offence may be committed by citizens or
foreigners. If the accused with the object of overthrowing the government
recruits people and punishes those who refuse to join he would be guilty of
waging war.
Abets the waging of War- abetment of waging War is made a special offence. It
is not essential that as a result of the abetment the war should in fact be waged.
Although the general law relating to abetment has made a distinction for
purposes of punishment between the abetment which has exceeded and the
abetment which has failed, this section makes no distinction between the two.
There is also no distinction between the principal and accessory and all who
take part in the unlawful act incur same liability. Maganlal case 1946 2
In the case of state(NCT of Delhi Vs Navjot Sandhu 2005) terrorists entered parliament
house with sophisticated arms and powerful explosives when parliamentary business was
being conducted therein. The supreme court held that the undoubted objective and
determination of deceased terrorists was to impinge on sovereign authority of nation and
its government
In Md. Jamiluddin Nasir v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal Nos.1240 – 1241 of
2010 and Aftab Ahmed Ansari @ Aftab Ansari Vs. The State of West Bengal Criminal
Appeal Nos.1242 – 1243 of 2010 case, the Supreme Court observed inter-alia that not all
violent behaviour would fall under the charge of ‘waging war’ i.e., this very concept shall
not be stretched too far. A balanced and realistic approach should be taken while
determining if an act constitutes the serious charge contemplated under this Section.
In Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi, the Court observed that in these cases (waging war), it is
not enough to prove that the persons charged have colluded to obtain possession of the
armoury and, when required to surrender, they retaliated by using such armoury against
the state officials. It must also be proved that the seizure of armoury was a part and parcel
of what was a planned move against the Government and that, they intended to
overwhelm the said troops.
In Md. Ajmal Md. Amir Kasab v. the State of Maharashtra, the court observed that in
“waging war”, the intent of the enemy is not only to disturb the peace or kill people. A
foreign enemy strikes at the sovereignty of the state and his conspiracy and subsequent
actions are motivated by that animus itself. 3
Ingredients of Section 121:
• To constitute the offence under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code the
following ingredients must exist:
• Accused must wage war, or
• Attempt to wage war, or
• Abet the waging of such war
• Against the Government of India
• The offence under Section 121 is cognizable, non-bailable, non-
compoundable and triable by Court of Session.
The word ‘whoever’ is used in a broader sense and is not only limited to the
people who owe loyalty to the established Government. For instance, in the
case of Mumbai Terror Attack, the first and the primary offence committed by
the appellant and other conspirators was the offence of waging war against the
Government of India. The attack was by foreign nationals and aimed at Indians
and India. The purpose of this attack was to accelerate communal tensions,
affect the financial situation of the country and most importantly to demand
India to surrender Kashmir. Therefore, under Section 121, 121A and 122 of the
Code, the appellant was rightly held guilty for waging war against the
Government of India.
4
Section 121A IPC:
• Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section:
• Section 121A was added to the Indian Penal Code in 1870. It says that
whoever within or without India conspires to commit any of the offences
punishable under section 121, or conspires to overawe, by means of criminal
force or the show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State
Government, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
• Section 121-A conspiracy to commit of offences punishable by section 121 the
expression “conspiring to overawe government by means of criminal force or
the show of criminal force” was interpreted by the Kerala High Court in the
case of Arbind versus state of 1983. The court observed that the word
“overawe” means something more than the mere creation of apprehension,
alarm or fear. It cannotes the creation of a situation in which the government
feels itself compelled to choose between yielding to force or exposing itself or
members of the public to a very serious danger
5
SEDITION
• History of Sedition Law in India
1.1837 – Thomas Macaulay (Famous for his Macaulay Minute on Indian Education
1835) drafted the Penal Code in 1837.
1. Sedition was placed in the Penal Code 1837 as Section 113.
2. Later, it was comitted, to only be readded in 1870 back in the Penal Code by
an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen.
3. British Raj in India had introduced this section on sedition under the title
“Exciting Disaffection”.
2.IPC Amendment Act of 1898 – It made amendments to the changes brought through
the Penal Code in 1870.
1. The current Section 124A is said to be similar to the amendments made to it in
1898 with few omissions made in 1937, 1948, 1950, and by Part B States
(Law) Act, 1951.
• Section 124A of IPC – Sedition
• The IPC Section 124 A says, “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into
hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the
Government established by law in India shall be punished with [imprisonment for
life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three
years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
6
• What is Disaffection towards Government?
• Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
• What does not constitute an offence under Sedition?
• When comments disapprove of government measures but with a view to alter
them lawfully i.e. ‘Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of
the Government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means,
without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection.’
• When comments disapprove of government’s administrative actions without
exciting all feelings of enmity – Comments expressing disapprobation of the
administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or
attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection.
• Punishment for the Sedition Offence
1.It is a non-bailable offence.
2.Imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to which fine may be added.
3.The person found guilty of this offence is not eligible for any government job
7
• Cases Related to Sedition Law in India
• Pre-Independence
Queen Empress v Jogendra Chunder Bose (1891)
1. Jugendra Bose wrote an article criticizing the Age of Consent Act, 1891.
2. His criticism was taken as disobedience towards the government.
3. However, later the case was dropped after he was released on bail.
Sedition Trial of Lokmanya Tilak (1897)
4. Bal Gangadhar Tilak has published the reports of the celebration followed
by an 1894 paper on the Maratha king Shivaji by Professor R. P. Karkaria.
Karkaria presented his paper to Bombay’s Royal Asiatic Society in 1894.
This paper led to the annual celebration of the Shivaji Coronation. Later,
Tilak published the celebrations’ reports.
5. Tilak reported these celebrations as “Shivaji’s Utterances” in his dailies –
Kesari and Mahratta.
6. The case was presided by Justice Arthur Strachey.
7. This sedition trial is historically famous as in this case, an attempt to
excite feelings of enmity against the government was also brought under
the scope of Section 124A terming it is seditious. Hence, it widened
the understanding of Section 124A.
8. Tilak was sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment. 8
Sedition Trial of Lokmanya Tilak (1908)
1. Tilak published two Kesari articles, titled “The Country’s
Misfortune” which he published on 12th May 1908 and “These
Remedies Are Not Lasting” which was published on 9th June 1908.
2. Under the newly drafted Section 124A, he was sentenced to six
years of imprisonment in Burma (Now, Myanmar).
Sedition Trial of Mahatma Gandhi (1922)
3. Mahatma Gandhi was imprisoned for six years for his articles in his
newspaper, ‘Young India’.
4. The charges imposed on him were – “Bringing or attempting to
excite disaffection towards His Majesty’s Government established
by law in British India”
5. Mahatma Gandhi termed Section 124A as “Prince among the
political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the
liberty of the citizen.”
9
• POST-INDEPENDENCE – SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi (1950) & Romesh
Thappar vs the State of Madras (1950)
1. The apex court held that a law that restricts speech on the ground that it
would disturb public order was unconstitutional.
2. The decision of the court prompted the ‘First Constitution
Amendment’, where Article 19 (2) was rewritten to replace
“undermining the security of the State” with “in the interest of public
order”
10
• Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State; AIR 1951 Punj 27 (Z6)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that S.124A was
unconstitutional. Weston and Khosla JJ believed sedition violated the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. A democratic state
will see changes in political ideologies and ruling parties. Sedition laws
may have been necessary during foreign rule. However, they are
inappropriate by the nature of the change which came about at
independence. Further, though Article 19(2) gives reasonable restrictions to
the fundamental right of free speech, the restriction has to be constitutional
and not excessive. The justices argued S. 124A did not pass this test.
Sabir Raza v. The State,
In 1958, the Allahabad High Court was confronted with a similar
constitutional challenge to sedition. Justice Raghubar Dayal in the Sabir
Raza case viewed any criticism of the Government, a Member of
Parliament or Government policy as protected under the right to freedom of
speech and expression. Such speech cannot be penalised under sedition
even if it disrupts public order. On the issue of threatening the security of
the State, the Court held that disruption of public order does not lead to the
overthrow of State. It is only by rebellion and mutiny that the State can be
overthrown, and a Republic destroyed
11
• Ram Nandan v. State of UP; AIR 1959 All 101
The Allahabad High Court categorically held S. 124A to be unconstitutional. S.
124A imposed restrictions on freedom of speech and was not in “public
interest”. In this case, Ram Nandan was an agricultural labour activist charged
with sedition. He accused the Congress government of failing to address
extreme poverty in the State. He encouraged cultivators to form an army and
overthrow the Government if needed. The Court held that a mere possibility of
public disorder is not enough to justify a restriction on the fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar; 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769
The Supreme Court had an opportunity to determine the validity of S. 124A in
1962. Constitution bench of the Supreme Court overruled all the
aforementioned High Court precedents. It held that sedition is a valid exception
to free speech so long as it intends to incite violence. Kedar Nath was a member
of the Forward Communist Party of Bihar. He was charged with sedition for his
speech in Barauni in 1953. He had accused the Congress government of
corruption and targeting Vinobha Bhave’s attempts to redistribute land. Justice
Sinha carved out the scope for applying sedition. He noted that any words of
disloyalty towards the government in ‘strong terms’ will not be sedition unless it
causes “public disorder by acts of violence”. Hence, this judgment predicated
the applicability of sedition on the likelihood of causing violence.
12
Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (1962)
1. Balwant Singh who was the Director of Public Instructions (DPI)
in Punjab, Chandigarh among other two, was alleged to have
shouted pro-Khalistan slogans on the day of former PM Indira
Gandhi’s assassination.
2. The apex court held that unless there is public disorder merely
sloganeering can’t attract punishment under Section 124A.
SG Vombatkere Vs UOI
• On 11 May, 2022, the Supreme Court directed the Central and state
governments to keep in abeyance Section 124A of the IPC that defines
sedition as any act or attempt “to bring into hatred or contempt, or…
excite disaffection towards the government”
13
• WHY CAN SEDITION LAW BE IMPORTANT?
1.The law keeps a check on anti-national, secessionist and terrorist
elements that can hamper the public order and incite violence and induce
enmity.
2.It helps in the stability of the elected government which could otherwise
be attempted to be thrown out using illegal and violent means.
3.It is an alignment with contempt of court. Elected Government is an
important part of the executive. Hence, contempt of the government can
be checked.
14
• ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SEDITION LAW
1.As the seeds of sedition law were sown in colonial times, it is often described
as a draconian law that can be used against what is otherwise is
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression
2.It has an ill effect on constructive criticism. As noted by the Supreme Court,
views that are different from the government’s don’t mean seditious.
Therefore, sedition laws can demotivate legal and lawful criticism.
3.Britain had repealed the Sedition Act in 2009, hence India should too be long
done with this.
4.To penalize the offender for disrupting public order, IPC and Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act 2019 have provisions that can take care of the
punishments.
5.India’s ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) in 1979 should be seen as a right step towards acknowledging
freedom of expression. Hence, with Sedition Law in activity, could lead to the
wrong use of the law where people are charged with offence arbitrability for
expressing their opinions.
15
4.2 SECTION 153 A
• Hate crimes in India
• Hate crimes, as the name suggests, consists of those criminal acts that are
solely motivated by bias, hate or discontent towards a particular group or
community. The root cause of such hatred is mostly religious, ethnic, and
racial differences between different groups. However, hate crime is
usually done against a community at large and therefore the outcome of
this crime can be grave and extremely destructive. India, also known as
the hub for cultural diversity, has groups and communities belonging to
various religions, castes, races, creeds and even languages. India has
witnessed religious differences right from partition to the present day.
The Godhra riots during partition, Muzaffarnagar riots, Baduria riots in
Bengal are clear examples of the presence of hatred, disharmony, and
enmity among various religious groups. The rising number of religious
riots that India was witnessing made it necessary for the legislation to
intervene and bring out certain laws that could criminalise such offences.
16
• SECTION 153A OF IPC
Section 153A IPC attempts to punish those who engage in promoting any
kind of enmity among different groups on the basis of religion, caste, race,
place of birth or residence, or even language. The provision puts a liability
on those who-
• Spread enmity in the form of words (spoken or written), visual
representations, and signs with the intention of causing disharmony,
hatred or disturbance among people belonging to different groups,
religions, castes or communities.
• Spread disharmony and disturb the public tranquillity of the people
belonging to different racial and religious groups.
• Aid in the organising of certain movements, drills that encourage as well
as train the participants of such movements to use criminal force and
violence upon people belonging to other racial and religious groups and
communities.
17
• Nature of Section 153A
• Since Section 153A imposes criminal liability upon those who spread
enmity and disharmony between different groups of people through words,
statements, and even through violence or criminal force, the offence made
out under this section is undoubtedly grave and of a serious nature.
Accordingly, the offence committed under Section 153A is a cognisable
offence, thereby allowing the police officers to arrest the accused without a
warrant. Further, the offence is non-bailable in nature wherein the accused
is tried by the magistrate of the first class.
18
• SECTION 153A AND SECTION 295A IPC
• While Section 153A IPC was added during the British era itself, the
legislation also introduced Section 295A IPC by the Criminal Law
Amendment Act,1927 to broaden the scope of such offences. It is
important to note that Section 295A and Section 153A go hand in hand.
This means that the two provisions interact with each other and the
offences enlisted under these sections are interlinked.
• Section 295A states that those who insult or attempt to insult any
religious sentiments of any particular group by way of gestures or words
are liable to be punished under this offence.
• The only difference between the two sections is that while Section 295A
criminalises those who offend or insult any religious group or a religion,
Section 153A IPC, on the other hand, criminalises creating enmity
between two different groups and not just within a single group as in the
case of Section 295A IPC.
19
• CASE LAWS
• Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957)
• In this case, the Court clarified that to constitute an offence under
Section 135A, the statements, words, or actions must be malfide and
cannot be unintentional. Therefore, mens rea is an essential ingredient
of Section 153A IPC.
• Further, in the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra,
the Court reiterated and held that the prosecution must prima facie
establish that the accused had the mens rea to cause enmity between
different classes of people.
• Azizul Haq Kausar Naqwi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1980)
• Additionally, the judgement of the Allahabad High Court, in this case,
made it clear that if the words or statements are mild and of a dignified
nature and do not result in hurting or insulting the deeper religious
sentiments of any group or community, the offence of Section 153A is
not committed.
20
• Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997).
• In this case, the court stated that to attract the offence of Section 153A IPC, it
is important to clearly check whether the alleged enmity is caused between
two different groups. Therefore, the mere mentioning of a religious
community while inciting the religious sentiments of one community cannot
constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC.
• Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020)
• In this recent 2020 judgement, the Supreme Court clarified the scope as well
as the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC.
In this case, the Court interpreted the scope of the term ‘public tranquillity’
under Section 153A IPC and held that the term must be read in conjunction
with the term ‘public order’. Therefore, this means that normal and routine
issues of law and order cannot come within the ambit of public tranquillity
and therefore, cannot constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC. The
Court also stated that it is important that misuse and abuse of this provision is
prevented at all costs.
21
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 153 A
1.The words, statements, or signs must cause enmity, hatred, and
disturbance of harmony between different racial, religious, and language
groups.
2.The alleged enmity must be caused among two or more communities.
The mere mention of the other community is not sufficient to attract
punishment under Section 153A IPC.
3.The presence of mens rea, i.e., the person must have the intention of
causing enmity and disharmony between different groups and
communities of people.
4.The words, spoken or written, must be of a serious nature and must
directly hurt the deep religious sentiments of the group or community.
5.Public tranquillity is synonymous with the term ‘public order’. This
means that disturbance of routine issues of law and order does not attract
this offence.
22
4.4 OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION
• INTRODUCTION
• India is known for its diversity and secularism, where people of various
religions coexist peacefully. However, there are instances where people
try to disrupt this harmony by committing offences relating to religion. To
prevent such acts and maintain social harmony, the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) has provisions under Sections 295 to 298 that deal with religious
offences under IPC.
• Section 295 of IPC
• The offence of “injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult
the religion of any class” is dealt with in Section 295 of the Indian Penal
Code. This provision makes it a crime to harm or degrade any place of
worship or object held sacred by a specific religious group with the goal
of offending that community’s religious emotions.
23
This offence contains the following elements:
• The accused must have harmed or desecrated a place of worship or any
object considered sacred by a religious group.
• Damage or destruction must have been done on purpose.
• The goal underlying the conduct has to be to offend the religious
emotions of a certain religious group.
• The accused must have known or should have known that his or her acts
would offend the religious sensitivities of a certain religious group.
• If an individual is found guilty of committing this offence, he or she may
face imprisonment for a term of up to two years, a fine, or both.
24
• SECTION 295A OF IPC
• Section 295A prohibits “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage
religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.”
This clause criminalizes any conduct designed to offend a community’s or
group’s religious sensibilities.
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code contains the following provisions:
• Intentional and malicious acts: The act of insult or provocation must be
intentional and done with the goal of offending the religious emotions of a
certain religious community.
• Meant to incite religious sentiments: The conduct must be meant to incite
religious feelings in any class of Indian residents. Religious sentiments might
encompass a person’s religious beliefs, customs, and practises.
• Insulting a religion or religious beliefs: The conduct must be intended to
offend a specific faith or religious beliefs. Words, gestures, or any other kind
of communication can be used.
• Intended against a class: The act must be intended at a specific class of
Indian people who practise a specific religion. Religious beliefs, practises, or
customs can be used to define the class. 25
• The penalty for violating Section 295A is up to three years in jail, a fine, or
both. The offence is non-bailable, which means that the accused is not
entitled to bail and must request authorization from the court. The section’s
goal is to prevent any form of communal conflict or disturbance that may
occur as a result of inflammatory remarks or acts directed towards a certain
religion or religious community.
26
• SECTION 296 OF IPC
• The offence of disrupting a religious gathering is dealt with under Section
296 of the Indian Penal Code. Anyone who willfully causes a disturbance
or disruption during a religious gathering or ritual is charged under this
clause. The section’s goal is to ensure the peaceful performance of
religious rites and to avoid any interruption to the people’s religious
feelings.
The following are the elements of the offence of disrupting a religious
gathering under Section 296 of the Indian Penal Code:
• The offence can only be committed if there is a religious assembly, which
is defined as any gathering or congregation of individuals who have
gathered for the purpose of religious worship or ritual.
• The accused must purposefully make a disturbance: The accused must
purposefully produce a disturbance or disruption during the religious
gathering. The mere presence of the offender or an unintentional
disruption will not be enough to constitute the offence.
• The accused must cause a disturbance to the assembly: The accused must
cause a disturbance to the assembly as a whole, not to any individual.
27
• The disruption must occur during the meeting, not before or after. Only
while the assembly is in session is the offence committed.
• The accused must have knowledge of or intend to incite a commotion:
The accused must have knowledge of or intend to disrupt the religious
assembly. If the disruption is unintended or accidental, the offence will not
be committed.
• If the foregoing conditions are satisfied, the offence of disrupting a
religious assembly is committed under Section 296 of the Indian Penal
Code. The offence is punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year, a fine, or both.
28
SECTION 297 OF IPC
• Article 21 includes within its ambit, the rights and dignity of the dead. The
landmark case of Pt. Parmanand Katara, Advocate vs. Union of India &
Anr. established this right; with the Hon''ble Supreme Court ruling
that: "right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is not only available to a living man but also to his
body after his death".
• In Ramji Singh @ Mujeeb Bhai v. State of U.P. & Ors, the Division
Bench held "that the word and expression ''person'' in Article 21 of the
Constitution includes a dead person in a limited sense and right to life
with dignity should be extended in such a manner that his dead body is
given respect, which he would have deserved, had he been alive, subject to
his tradition, culture and the religion which he professed".The Apex Court
in Ashray Adhikar vs. Union of India & Ors. examined the rights of dead
bodies of homeless unclaimed persons and held that a right to decent
burial/cremation as per the religion of the dead body must also be included
in those rights.
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860, also grants protection to the rights and
dignity of dead bodies.
29
• SECTION 297 OF IPC
• The offence of trespassing on burial grounds is addressed under Section 297
of the Indian Penal Code. This clause makes it an offence to trespass place of
worship or access or remain in any site where the deceased are disposed of
without valid authorization or consent.
The following are the major components of this offence:
• Entry or remaining in any location used for the disposal of the dead or place
of worship: A person commits the offence if he or she enters or remains in any
place of worship or place used for the disposal of the dead. This includes
cemeteries, burial grounds, cremation sites, and other similar locations.
• Without lawful authority or permission: The admission or continued presence
in such a location must be without lawful authority or permission. This implies
that the individual does not have a valid justification or authority to be in the
location.
• Aim to offend anyone’s religion or emotions: The offence is compounded if
the person entering or remaining in such a location does so with the aim to
insult anyone’s religion or feelings. This implies that entering a religious
burial place with the goal of disrespecting or insulting the faith or beliefs of
individuals buried there is a more severe offence. 30
• Mischief: The offence is enhanced if the perpetrator commits any
mischief while in such a location. This includes destroying or defacing
graves or other property, as well as indulging in any other conduct that
harms or damages the location or the persons affiliated with it.
Trespassing on burial grounds or place of worship is punishable by
imprisonment for up to three months, a fine, or both under Section 297 of
the Indian Penal Code. However, if the offence is done with the aim to
offend someone’s faith or sensibilities, or to cause damage, the
punishment may be more severe, including imprisonment for up to two
years, a fine, or both.
In summary, Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code is intended to protect
the sanctity and dignity of burial places, as well as to ensure that those
who enter or remain in such places do so with lawful authority or
permission, and with no intention of disrespecting or insulting any
person’s religion or feelings.
31
• SECTION 298 OF IPC
• Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code criminalises “uttering words, etc., with
deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.” This clause was included to the
IPC to safeguard persons’ religious sensibilities and to prevent intentional
insult or harm to their religious beliefs.
• The ingredients of Section 298 are as follows:
1.Uttering words/sounds: The provision applies to anybody who utters
words, produces sounds or gestures, or displays any object with the goal of
insulting a certain group or class of people’s religious beliefs.
2.Deliberate intent: The words or acts must be done with the deliberate goal
of injuring a person’s or a group’s religious emotions. This section does not
cover criticism of religious beliefs or practises that are not intended to offend
or hurt religious emotions.
3.Wounding religious sentiments: The words or acts must be such that they
are likely to injure a person’s or a group’s religious sensibilities. The offence
is not complete if the individual does not feel insulted or if the words or acts
do not have the potential to injure the person’s or group’s religious emotions.
4.Religion or religious beliefs: The offence encompasses all religions and
religious beliefs. It makes no difference whether the religion or religious
belief is minority or majority. 32
• Section 298 offences are punishable by imprisonment for up to three years, a
fine, or both. If the offence is done with the aim to incite a riot, the sentence
may be increased to up to five years in jail, a fine, or both.
33
