Why in News?

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 has replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offence earlier covered under Section 295A IPC is now substantially retained under Section 299 BNS.

Legal Provision:

Section 299 BNS deals with acts intended to deliberately and maliciously outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

It covers acts committed through:

• Spoken or written words

• Signs

• Visible representations

• Electronic means

• Other forms of communication

Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.

Key Requirement: Mens Rea

The provision requires deliberate and malicious intention.

Therefore, mere criticism, insult, or an expression that causes offence does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 299. The required intention must be established.

Constitutional Dimension:

The provision must be examined alongside:

• Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.

• Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, including in the interests of public order.

Important Supreme Court Ruling:

In Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 295A IPC.

The Court emphasised that the provision applies to deliberate and malicious acts, rather than every form of criticism or expression concerning religion.

Section 299 BNS vs Section 302 BNS:

Section 299:
Deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class.

Section 302:
Deals with deliberately wounding the religious feelings of an individual through words, sounds, gestures or objects.

Judicial Significance:

The provision involves a balance between individual freedom of expression and the State’s interest in maintaining religious harmony and public order.

The requirement of deliberate and malicious intention is an important safeguard against treating every allegedly offensive expression as a criminal offence.

Mains Point:

Section 299 BNS highlights the constitutional tension between freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), with mens rea serving as a crucial judicial safeguard.