Published Paper Details:

Abstract: The 42nd Amendment to India's Constitution strengthened its secular status, mandating a neutral stance in religious affairs. Blasphemy, derived from the Greek verb, refers to disrespectful or offensive words or statements towards religious persons, groups, activities, or beliefs. Anti-blasphemy laws aim to ban the expression of disrespect or offensive comments towards religious persons, groups, activities, or beliefs. These laws are among the oldest laws created to combat hate speech. The rationale for anti-blasphemy laws is multifaceted and influenced by historical, religious, and political considerations. Blasphemy is often seen as a grave offence against sacred beliefs by numerous religions, as they uphold the sanctity of God and his teachings. Governments may employ criminal legislation to enforce religious ideals in regions where religion holds significant societal influence. Religious sentiments are regarded as essential ethical and societal principles that influence human conduct and social structure, and their safeguarding is seen as a necessary condition for stable governance. Legal provisions dealing with blasphemy include Section 295 for causing harm or defiling a place of worship, Article 295A for intentional and evil actions to provoke strong negative emotions within a particular religious group, Article 296 for disruption of religious gatherings, and Article 297 for trespassing on burial places or places of worship to cause emotional harm or insult religious sentiments. Section 295A threatens fundamental basic liberties. Blasphemy laws originated in premodern societies governed by nonsecular and undemocratic systems. They restricted freedom of speech and expression in response to societal reactions, diminished individual liberties, and allowed specific parts of society to suppress opposing views. Unlike hate speech, blasphemy comments may not automatically involve hate or violence and should not be regulated by blasphemy laws. Instead, governments should promote acceptance and discourage using religious beliefs to suppress opposing views. To alleviate the detrimental impact of blasphemy laws on journalists, authorities should have more specific and meticulously crafted blasphemy legislation, demonstrate criminal intent and foreseeability, and avoid discrimination based on religious beliefs. Additionally, states should reject the recognition of blasphemy convictions with INTERPOL-triggered arrest warrants or assessments of journalists' visas.