Court upholds constitutionality of Indian Penal Code Section 295A, restricting freedom of speech for public order

The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that it imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of public order. The Court found that the section penalizes deliberate and malicious insults to religion that outrage religious feelings, with the calculated tendency to disrupt public order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application challenging the section's constitutionality, stating that it falls within the permissible legislative action affecting the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

---

---

Issues Involved: Constitutionality of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Interference with Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(2).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 295A of the IPC:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 295A of the IPC, arguing that it interferes with the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a declaration that Section 295A is ultra vires and unconstitutional, and requested a writ of certiorari to quash the conviction under this section.

2. Interference with Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a):
The petitioner contended that Section 295A cannot be supported as a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) as provided in Clause (2) of the said Article. The argument was that the section imposes restrictions that are not solely in the interests of public order and, therefore, cannot be justified under the Constitution.

3. Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(2):
The Court examined whether Section 295A can be considered a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in the interests of public order. The Court noted that the language used in Clause (2) of Article 19, as amended, protects laws imposing reasonable restrictions "in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."

The Court emphasized that the expression "in the interests of" makes the ambit of the protection very wide. It was pointed out that Section 295A penalizes only those acts of insults to religion or religious beliefs that are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens. Therefore, the calculated tendency of this aggravated form of insult is to disrupt public order, and the section falls within the protection of Clause (2) of Article 19.

Conclusion:
The Court held that Section 295A of the IPC is a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interests of public order. The language of the section is not wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). Consequently, the question of severability does not arise, and the decisions relied upon by the petitioner have no application to this case. The application was dismissed, and Section 295A was upheld as constitutional.

---