Communalism and secularism

What is the news?

The Supreme Court in a judgement has said that Inter-caste marriages will possibly reduce caste and community tensions.

Background:

• This judgement came on a petition filed by a girl who fled from Bengaluru to Delhi to marry a man who was from a different caste.
• The police officer on a complaint filed by her relatives directed the girl to leave her husband. However, she refused to comply with the statement that they were legally married by her choice.

Key Observations made by the Supreme Court:

• The consent of the family or community is not necessary, once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a marriage. Their consent has to be given primacy.
• Educated youngsters are showing the way forward by tying the knot in inter-Caste-marriages. It will reduce caste and community tensions in India. Possibly, this is the way forward where caste and community tensions will reduce.
• The court also emphasized the need for specific guidelines and a training module for the police personnel. It will train them to handle cases of inter-caste marriage.

The court quoted B.R. Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste in which he said, “I am convinced that the real remedy is intermarriage. The fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin, and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount, the separatist feeling — the feeling of being aliens — created by caste will not vanish.”

Dr. Ambedkar Scheme for Social Integration through Inter-Caste Marriages

• The scheme was launched in 2013 by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
• Objective: This scheme was launched to extend the financial incentive to the intermarriage couples. It will enable them to settle down in the initial phase of their married life.
• Incentives: Every such couple that involves a Schedule Caste is eligible to get a one-time incentive of Rs 2.5 lakh from the Centre. It is Irrespective of their total annual income.

Source: The Hindu

Synopsis: The report released by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (UK) recommends an arm’s length relationship with India due to rise of religious intolerance. 

Back ground 

• Recently, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (UK) have proposed a blueprint titled “Global Britain, Global Broker”, for Britain’s future foreign policy after Brexit. 
• As a matter of concern for India, the report has paid less attention to India’s role in the futuristic vision of a “Global Britain”. 
• The report has classified India as one of the “difficult four” countries along with Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. India will be counted among the UK’s “rivals” or “awkward counterparts”. 

What was the reason given in the report for classifying India as one of the “difficult four” countries? 

The report highlights two major issues for that 

• First, according to the report the rise of Hindu nationalism in India is weakening the rights of Muslims and other minority religious groups. 

• This rise in intolerant majoritarianism is damaging the vision of a secular, democratic India envisioned by Nehru. 

• Second, the report labels India as a half-hearted supporter of liberal democracy and a country with mixed approaches to human rights abuses. 

Why the report’s criticism towards India is meaningless? 

Criticism of India over growing religious intolerance and the suppression of critique and dissent is not a surprise. Most of the diplomats from various countries have consented regarding this. For example, the Canada has voiced against the Kashmir internet shut down.  

But second criticism is particularly pointless. Despite being the world’s largest democracy, labelling India as a half-hearted supporter of liberal principles and institutions abroad is not correct, because, 

• India for long been unwilling to step up on the global stage to the responsibilities of “committed democracies” due to uneven playing field in today’s international order. 
• The 21st century Global order produces unevenly distributed rights, obligations, and burdens for post-colonial nations and the principle of equality and sovereignty of states still remains as a myth. 
• Even today, the post-colonial states such as India, do not enjoy full political and economic independence on how they make decisions at home, nor in their efforts to shape the agendas of international institutions. 

Thus, 2nd criticism of India can be precisely summarised in the words of Former Indian foreign secretary and national security advisor Shivashankar Menon. He said, “Encouragement by western international partners for India to “behave responsibly” usually means doing what they would like us to do”. 

 What is the way forward for India? 

• First, India need not look into the issue of UK distancing from India too seriously. No nation today can move forward without factoring in India. Even the report has highlighted this. 
• Second, India’s high-profile international activity in the next 2 years as elected member of the UN Security Council and as host of the 2023 G20 Summit should be effectively used to leverage India’s positions of influence in the international sphere.  
• Third, India needs to build on the critical and normative resources to inspire greater equality, legitimacy and inclusivity in the international sphere.  

Synopsis: The Allahabad high court’s recent decision to strike down the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 that make it mandatory for couples to publish a 30-day public notice of their intent to marry is a significant and much-needed correction.

About the Special Marriage Act

• • The Special Marriage Act was originally enacted in 1872 to provide a framework for inter-caste and inter-religious marriages.
  • The Act allows the solemnization of marriages (performing the public ceremony/rites of marriage) without any religious customs or rituals. The law solemnizes marriages by the way of registration.
  • As per Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, marriages irrespective of the religion of the couple require parties to give a 30-day public notice of their intention to marry before solemnizing their marriage
  • The provision of mandatory 30 days’ notice period ended up giving vigilante groups, families hostile to inter-faith and inter-caste unions with disproportionate powers to police young couples.
  • The Act is applicable to all Indian citizens and Indian nationals who live in abroad.
  • Allahabad High Court observed the Special Marriage Act as ‘one of the earliest endeavours towards Uniform Civil Code.

About the case 

Recently, in response to a writ petition filed, Allahabad High Court gave a judgment that would have far-reaching impacts.

• • In its conclusion, the HC stated, though the couple wanted to marry under the Special Marriage Act, the mandatory provision for 30-day notice, under section 5 of the act, compelled them to take the easier route of religious conversion.
  • Thus, Section 5 acting as a barrier to inter-faith couples, willing to marry under the secular SMA rather than taking religious conversion routes.
  • On this basis, the Court allowed couples not to publish the mandatory 30-day notice of their intention to marry.
  • Also, the court allowed the individuals, who desire to have more information about their counterparts, to opt for publication of notice under Section 6 of the Act. Such publication of notice under free will not be a violation of fundamental rights due to free choice.
  • The court also noted that when marriages under personal law do not require a notice or invitation for objections, such a requirement for inter-faith couples’ is obsolete in secular law and cannot be forced on a couple.

• • As a result, many preferred to convert and marry under personal laws, rather than under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to prevent themselves from harassment.

Why the Allahabad high court’s decision is regarded as a significant step?

The high court’s ruling against the mandatory need for couples to publish a 30-day public notice has been praised for the following reasons,

• • First, the decision comes at the right time where the anti-conversion ordinances in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have endorsed the state intrusions on inter-personal relationships.  The decision will protect the primacy of individual autonomy.
  • Second, the HC ruling is in line with The Law Commission of India report in 2012 that recommended keeping a check on the unnecessary interference by caste assemblies in sagotra, inter-caste or inter-religious marriages.
  • Third, The HC judgment reaffirms the constitutional protection to minorities as even today a minuscule of the minority of marriages are, inter-faith unions.
  • Fourth, it is in line with a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments that are against societal and state interference in personal affairs and firmly establishes personal liberty and privacy to be fundamental. For example,

• • • Puttaswamy v Union of India, that recognise the right to privacy as a fundamental right
    • The Hadiya case, right to choose one’s partner.
    • In Navtej Singh Johar case: The ruling that decriminalised homosexuality.

• • It will be a body blow to Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 which have provisions such as

• • • Declaring conversion of religion by marriage to be unlawful
    • Mandating a 60-day notice to the District Magistrate
    • Requiring the Magistrate to conduct a police inquiry to know the real intention behind the conversion.

• • As the Special Marriage Act is a central legislation, couples across the country seeking to marry under the law will benefit from the liberal ruling of the provisions.
  • It paves way for abolishing and cleansing obsolete Victorian-era protectionist provisions in other laws as well.

The Allahabad High Court judgement is a reminder and a warning that the constitution remains the bulwark against an overreaching state policy such as the anti-conversion ordinance in UP and MP.

News: The National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) has announced that it will offer a free IDN (Internationalized Domain Name) in any of their preferred 22 official Indian languages along with every IN domain booked by the registrar.

Facts:

• NIXI: It is a not for profit Organization established under section 8 of the Companies Act 2013 in 2003.
• Purpose: It was set up for peering of ISPs among themselves for the purpose of routing the domestic traffic within the country, instead of taking it all the way to US/Abroad thereby resulting in better quality of service (reduced latency) and reduced bandwidth charges.
• Objectives:
  • To promote the Internet.
  • To set up, when needed, in select location(s)/parts/regions of India Internet Exchanges/Peering Points.
  • To enable effective and efficient routing, peering, transit and exchange of the Internet traffic within India.
  • To continuously work for enhancing and improving the quality of Internet and Broadband services.
  • Set up. Internet Domain Name Operations and related activities.
• Managed by: NIXI is managed and operated on a Neutral basis, in line with the best practices for such initiatives globally.
• India’s Country Code: “.IN” is India’s Country Code Top Level domain (ccTLD).The Govt. of India delegated the operations of INRegistry to NIXI in 2004.

Article Source

News: The Bombay High Court has held that the sale of items, claiming that they possess miraculous or supernatural powers via television advertisement is illegal.

Facts:

What was the matter?

• A petition was filed seeking a direction and injunction to prevent advertisements on television channels that promote the sale of articles like Hanuman Chalisa Yantra.
• The petitioner had come across advertisements in 2015 on TV claiming special, miraculous and supernatural properties/qualities in Hanuman Chalisa Yantra prepared by one Baba Mangalnath who had achieved ‘siddhi’ (supernatural powers) and was blessed by Lord Hanuman.

What is the Judgement?

• The court held that using the name of any God and claiming that it has supernatural qualities is “illegal” and falls under the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act.
• The court observed that the objectives quoted in the Black Magic Act can be achieved mainly through education.
  • Section 3 of the Black Magic Act prohibits not only commission of acts of black magic, evil practices but also propagation and promotion of such practices and magic. Section 3(2) of the Act provides that abetment of such propaganda is also an offence.
• Quoting the fundamental duty to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry, the Court said that the reformists like Mahatma Phule and Babasaheb Ambedkar who worked to remove evil practices and spread awareness against superstition, were born on this soil.

Article Source

Synopsis– Uttar Pradesh recently passed an ordinance which criminalizes inter­faith marriages, which is against the exercise of the free will of individual citizens in India. 

Introduction-  

• UP ordinance which criminalizes inter-faith marriages has set an extreme example, being followed by other states like MP.  
• In these states’ other laws on slaughter of cattle, marriage, and religious conversions have been enacted targeted at minorities of the state.  
• In Uttarakhand, a recent divergent view attracted an enquiry over a press release by district social welfare department that highlighted a scheme incentivizing  inter-faith and inter-caste marriages. 

How interfaith marriages were seen in the past  

• First, Nehru’s view– Chaudhary charan singh in 1994, Sends a proposal to Prime Minister Nehru to pass a law that would ensure only those youth who married outside, or were prepared to marry outside, their caste be recruited in gazetted government services. 
• Charan singh believed the intractable issue of caste required drastic measures to start the process of its disintegration.  

• • • But Nehru disagrees with his proposal on account of freedom of choice of individuals to choose their life partner. 

• Second, Kusubh Chandra sen’s view– The very first debate for legal marriage in India dates back to the 1860s, when the colonial State received a petition signed by Keshub Chandra Sen of Brahmo Samaj, to legitimise marriages amongst the members of Brahmo Samaj. The motive was to provide the Samaj the right to freely marry as per their ‘rites of conscience’. 
• Third, Special Marriage Act, 1954– SMA is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to provide a special form of marriage for the people of India and all Indian nationals in foreign countries, irrespective of the religion or faith followed by either party. 

However, States such as Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh framing laws that target inter-faith marriage. 

The procedural requirements of the SMA such as the need to give prior notice, and allowance for objections, seem to be undermining its original intent by opening the doors to violent moral policing by vigilante groups. 

What are the issues related to these new laws? 

Interference by the State in an adult’s right to love and marry has a ‘chilling effect’ on freedoms

• First, against personal liberty- These new laws intervene in the citizens’ personal liberty by interfering with the choice of their spouse.  
• Second, Against the Right to Privacy– The level of state interference in a civil union, which is a solemnization of a relationship between two individuals, breaches the basic structure of the Constitution.  
• Third, Hinder the individual’s Right to choose faith– According to Articles 25 to 28, an Indian citizen is guaranteed the freedom to practice any religion of his or her choice. The ordinance is a conflict with these rights as it limits the choice of the religion of a prospective spouse. 
• Lastly, Patriarchal Roots- This shows the law has deep-seated patriarchal roots, wherein women are infantilized, placed under parental and community control, and denied the right to take life decisions, should those decisions not be agreeable to their guardians.

Constitution of India offers high principles for citizens to aspire for. Citizens may not have been lived up to these principles but it was the intent that individual try to achieve those principles by doing better to the society. Laws in questions are doing exact opposite by going against these principles.

Way forward-

Based on the judicial pronouncements it is clear that the Right to marry a person belongs to another faith is a Fundamental Right 

• It is for the court to suo motu strike these laws down if it wants to preserve the basic structure of the constitutional edifice.

Context: The Allahabad High Court verdict in ‘Salamat Ansari’ is a reminder of the Constitution’s most cherished values.

What did the court say?

• Religious conversions, even when made solely for the purposes of marriage, constituted a valid exercise of a person’s liberties.
• The High Court ruled that the freedom to live with a person of one’s choice is intrinsic to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty.
• It held that the judgment in Noor Jahan was incorrectly delivered. Marriage is a matter of choice, and every adult woman has a fundamental right to choose her own partner.

What is the issue?

• Legislation: Various State governments undertaking projects to outlaw what they describe pejoratively as “Love Jihad”.
• Petitioners vs. State:
  • The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking orders to quash a First Information Report (FIR). This FIR alleged that crime was committed under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises the abduction of a woman with an intent to compel her to marry against her will.
  • The State argued that the partnership had no sanctity in the law, because a conversion with a singular aim of getting married was illegitimate.

What are the other related judgements?

• Noor Jahan v. State of U.P. (2014): the High Court had held that a conversion by an individual to Islam was valid only when it was predicated on a “change of heart” and on an “honest conviction” in the tenets of the newly adopted religion.
  • Burden of proof: the High Court had ruled that the burden to prove the validity of a conversion was on the party professing the act.
• Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh: the Court upheld, on grounds of public order, two of the earliest anti-conversion statutes in India: the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968, and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967. These laws required that a District Magistrate be informed each time a conversion was made and prohibited any conversion that was obtained through fraud or illegal inducement.

What does the judgement signify?

• Right to religious freedom: it is neither the province of the state nor any other individual to interfere with a person’s choice of partner or faith.
• Right to privacy: It held that an individual’s ability to control vital aspects of her life inheres in her right to privacy. Puttaswamy judgement, has recognised that every individual possesses a guaranteed freedom of thought.
• Right to live with dignity: It includes the preservation of decisional autonomy, on matters such as “personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home, and sexual orientation”.
• Freedom of conscience: Article 25 of the Constitution expressly protects the choices that individuals make. It guarantees to every person the freedom of conscience. The idea of protecting one’s freedom of conscience goes beyond mere considerations of religious faith.

This is high time that we need to respect people’s choices. When we fail to acknowledge and respect the most intimate and personal choices that people make,we undermine the most basic principles of dignity.

Link to our 7PM editorial of similar article (ISSUE OF INTERFAITH MARRIAGES AND LAWS IN INDIA)

The article is based on The Big Picture: Special Marriage Act and Indian Express Explained, Roll it back appeared in the month of November. 

Context: The Uttar Pradesh government has cleared an ordinance that enables the state to police and punish inter-faith marriages with “the sole intention of changing a girl’s religion”.

Why Uttar Pradesh drafted such an ordinance?

• In the past few months, cases of alleged “love jihad” have been reported from different parts of the state, especially eastern and central UP especially Lakhimpurkheri.
• a group of parents from a particular locality in Kanpur had complained that their daughters are being allegedly trapped by Muslim men
• In some cases, girls refused to accept that they were tempted into marriage.

Criticisms against the law

Many critics of the law have put forward a few issues regarding the law:

• Allowing the police to examine subjective “intentions” of men and women entering a marriage veers into thought control — and sets the law up for rampant abuse.
• Law against fundamental rights: By clearing the ordinance, the state government has trespassed the fundamental right to marry guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

 Anti-conversion law at central level:

Central government proposed various bills but none of them passed and became a law. They are:

• Indian Conversion (Regulation and Registration) Bill 1954
• Backward Communities (Religious Protection) Bill 1960
• Freedom of Religion Bill in 1979

In 2015, the Law Ministry said passing of any law on religious conversion is purely a “State subject” and Central government has no role in it.

Is Uttar Pradesh being the only state to initiate law for forceful conversion?

• No, after the central government failed to pass 1960 bill, Odisha government moved on and passed the first anti-conversion law in 1968
• After that so far 10 states have had passed anti-conversion laws in India.
• The Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019, and the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, both prohibit conversion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, inducement, allurement and ‘by marriage’.

But Uttar Pradesh has become one of the first State to pass forcible conversion only during Interfaith marriages as special legislation. States such as Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka have also sought to bring such legislation.

Interfaith Marriages:

• It simply means the matrimonial relation between individuals who follow different religious faiths.
• Marriage between the same faiths has been governed by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Muslim personal Law. But to rectify and include interfaith marriages Centre passed the Special Marriage Act 1954.
• Special Marriage Act considers Interfaith Marriages as secular.

 Judicial pronouncement regarding interfaith marriages and forcible conversions:

• The Rev Stanislaus vs Madhya Pradesh case: Supreme Court said Article 25 does provide freedom of religion in matters related to practice, profess and propagate, but the word propagate does not give the right to convert and upheld the laws prohibiting Conversion through force, fraud, or allurement.
• Based on the above case it is clear that forcible conversion or conversion through fraud and allurement is against the Right to Freedom of Religion.
• Sarla Mudgal case: The court had held that the religious conversion into Islam by a person from non-Islamic faith is not valid if the conversion is done for the purpose of polygamy.
• Lily Thomas case: In this case Court observed that marrying another woman after converting to Islam is punishable under the bigamy laws.
• Hadiya Case: Supreme Court said that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution
• Allahabad High Court, in the case, Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and Others observed that one shouldn’t change one’s faith just for the sake of matrimony. As two persons professing different religions can marry under the Special Marriage Act.
• But in the most recent judgment, Allahabad High Court itself overturned its previous judgment, calling the decision “bad in law”. The division bench of the Allahabad high court said on November 11, that judgment does not take into account the right to life and personal liberty of mature adults.

Way forward:

Based on the judicial pronouncements it is clear that the Right to marry a person belongs to another faith is a Fundamental Right but that does not have to be associated only with personal laws or religious conversions. It is the Right of the individual’s personal liberty to involve in Interfaith Marriage either by the Special Marriage Act of 1954 or by Personal laws (after getting himself converted).

Context: Many state governments have announced that they are considering enacting an appropriate law to stop marriages which they term as “love jihad”.

What are the recent cases?

• A Muslim girl by birth converted to the Hindu religion and just after a month, she married a Hindu man according to Hindu rites and rituals.
• The Allahabad court directed the girl to appear before a magistrate to record her statements.
• The purpose was to check whether the girl converted with her consent or not.
• In another matter, a Hindu girl by birth converted to Islam and married a Muslim. The High Court recorded her statement and after its subjective satisfaction that she, being a major, had acted of her own volition.

What was the basis of observations?

• Lily Thomas (2000) and Sarla Mudgal (1995): In both the cases, the issue was of Hindu married men committing bigamy to avail a second marriage, without dissolving the first just by converting from Hinduism to Islam.
• Section 494 and second marriage: Both judgments concluded that the second marriage of a Hindu husband, after his conversion to Islam, would not be valid in view of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court clarified that a marriage solemnised as a Hindu marriage cannot be terminated by one spouse converting to another religion.

What are the arguments against such laws?

• No legal basis: The concept of “love jihad” has no legal or constitutional basis, it has been concocted for the last few years.
• Fundamental right: The right to marry a person of one’s choice is a guarantee under Article 21. At the same time, freedom of conscience, the practice and propagation of a religion of one’s choice, including not following any religion, are guaranteed under Article 25.
• Avoid mixing of issues: Polygamy, polyandry, kidnapping, coercion, etc. are separate issues covered under existing provisions of the IPC.
• Fundamental freedoms: The right to marry a person of one’s choice flows from the freedom of individuality, naturally available to any individual.
• Supreme court views: The view of the Supreme Court (1965) that a marriage is not approved unless the essential ceremonies required for its solemnisation are proved to have been performed can only be read if one partner denies the marriage.
• Marriage is the very foundation of civilised society: the observation that “marriage is the very foundation of civilised society” and without which no civilised society can exist have become obsolete given the recent judgments by larger benches of the Supreme Court.
• Sub-judice: The legality of legislation like the Citizenship Amendment Act, which excludes only one religion from its purview, criminalisation of pronouncements of triple talaq and taking away the special status of Jammu & Kashmir are pending consideration in the Supreme Court.

The Courts needs to examine if the individual concerned has exercised their right of “free consent”.

What is hate speech? 

The term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of their collective identity, be it race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexuality.

Hate speech threatens two key doctrines of democracy-

• The guarantee of equal dignity to all
• The public good of inclusiveness.

Criteria to identify hate speech:

1. The extremity of the speech.
2. Incitement
3. Status of the author of the speech.
4. Status of victims of the speech.
5. Potentiality of the speech.
6. Context of the Speech.

Regulation of Hate speech in India

• Constitutional provisions: Article 19(2) of the Constitution gives all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression but subject to “reasonable restrictions” for preserving inter alia “public order, decency or morality”.
• Statutory provisions:   India prohibits hate speech by several sections such as Section 95 of CRPC Section 124A or Section 153A or Section 153B or Section 292 or Section 293 or Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

Various Causes of hate speech-

1. Historical underpinnings- Any historical enmity between various religious or societal groups can motivate them to do hate crimes. During the independence struggle, both communities were divided which still has an impact. For example; the divide and rule policy.
2. Vote bank politics: Often vote bank politics, use various communal or emotional tools to garner the vote of few groups by inciting hatred in them. They use false stories, news, etc to incite such incidents.
3. Acceptance of hate by society: Sometimes society, in general, accepts hatred against a particular group or nation based on past experience of atrocities. E.g many groups see refugees or migrated people as their enemies and islamophobia in European countries.
4. Illiteracy-Lack of education prevents the overall development of an individual. Still, about 23% of the population in India is illiterate. This prevents the development of tolerance and understanding of individuality in them.
5. Consensus in society: Increasing unemployment lead to the development of feeling of hatred against a particular group especially refugees and migrated one. People see them as an enemy and one who snatches their rights. This phenomenon is worldwide. For eg, thousands of people of the northeast living in Bangalore headed to Guwahati, following rumors of violence targeting them.
6. Prejudice and bias-Bias toward a particular group can be a reason for hate crimes. E.g 704 cases of crimes against Northeast people in Delhi in 3 years. It can incite hate crime against them without making any difference between culprit and innocent.
7. Patriarchy-This hold true mainly in case of hate crime against women. Honour killing of women is mainly due to patriarchal mindset where women are attached to one’s falsified honour and women seen as an object tied to family respect.
   • For instance, in 2010 when Nirupama, a student of journalism, was killed by her family members in Jharkhand for planning to marry her boyfriend from another caste.
8. Lack of strong laws-lack of strong and clear laws, poor implementation results in low conviction rate. So, culprits are let to roam freely.
9. Social media: Fake news, propagandais often invoked on social media against a particular group to destabilise a society. For example, Muzaffarnagar riots in 2013.

Challenges in regulating hate speech

• Freedom to speech-Any regulations for social media content should follow globally accepted norms of freedom of speech and impartiality which is hard to apply with the restrictions on the content.
• Independent Regulator– An independent regulator can be misused in geographies where the idea of impartiality is used to the wish of the ruling regimes.

• Privacy Regulation– The introduction of privacy regulations such as the European Union’s General data protection regulation (GDPR) signaled the fact that self- regulations of the platforms didn’t work in the desired way.

Way forward 

• Code of conduct: the European Union has also established a code of conduct to ensure non-proliferation of hate speech under the framework of a ‘digital single market.’It requires collaborative, independent and inclusive regulation that is customised to regional and cultural specifications while adhering to global best practices of content moderation and privacy rights.
• The Law Commission of India recommended that new provisions in IPC are required to be incorporated to address the issue of hate speech.
• Punitive action: The legislature and political parties should suspend or dismiss members who are implicated in hate crimes or practise hate speech. Strict disciplinary act should be taken against such individuals and parties.
• The electronic and print media should stop showing or publishing hateful comments and threats. Any act of incitement of hatred should be punished by cancelling license or through imprisonment or fine.
• Imbibing values: Values of tolerance and respect that are common to all religions should be preached and schools should revitalise courses on the directive principles of our Constitution.
• If the speech or statement or art of work have an element of incitement of hate, it should be treated as a hate speech under section 153(a) of IPC and not as a Blasphemy.

Sacrilege: violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred.
Blasphemy Law: Deals with the matter pertaining to lack of respect toward God, religion, a religious icon, or something else considered sacred.

Arguements for blasphemy law

• To value and respect for sanctity of the God, Religion and Religious belief.
• Religion affects the actions of human beings. Legal protection provided by state to protect religious belief and sentiments leads to stable society and governance.
• Most of the countries implement Blasphemy laws as a reasonable restriction for the maintenance of communal harmony.
• Blasphemy law is required by the states that have an official religion like Pakistan

Argument against blasphemy law

• Blasphemy has been described as irreverence towards God or Religion, however the term “Religion‟ itself lacks a proper definition for itself.
• Against the spirit of Fundamental right of Speech and Expressions. USA has no blasphemy law to protect freedom of speech and expressions.
• Blasphemy laws are incompatible with the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• Blasphemy law is often be used as a tool for the majority to oppress the minority.

The allegations of blasphemy have been used by vigilante groups and non-state actors to justify and instigate incidents of interreligious violence.

Judgments

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

• The case challenged the constitutional validity of law.
• Case argues that Art. 19(2) only put reasonable restrictions but section 295 A casts its net much wider by criminalizing all speech that was intended to outrage religious feeling.
• A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 295 A
• Supreme court observed that section 295A did not cover all type of Insult but only intentional insults

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v Ram Manohar Lohia

• Under this case supreme court observes that speech which is prohibited should have a direct connection to disrupt public order and it should not be just a remote connection
• This is contrary to previous judgment (Ram ji Lal Modi case) which gave the order that a slight connection of freedom of speech with public disorder fall under Section 295 A.

• New Punjab law Under new proposed law any “injury, damage or sacrilege to Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Srimad Bhagwad Geeta, Holy Quran and Holy Bible with the intention to hurt the religious feelings of the people” a crime punishable with life imprisonment Need for Law Several incidents took place in various part of Punjab related to sacrilege of Holy book of Sikhs. Existing provisions of the said Act in Section 295, 295A and 296 though deal with these matters but do not provide deterrent punishment for incidents Issues with the law Protecting Holy book of one religion is anti-secular and discriminatory against other religion. Most importantly, section 295-A of IPC deals with religion and religious beliefs, punishment under section 295-AA explicitly for religious text would be disproportionate

• Misuse of law in the guise of protecting religion sentiments may inflict violence.

In News- Sudarshan TV case will have several implications for the regulation of free speech.

What is hate speech? 

The term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis their collective identity, be it race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality.

Hate speech threatens two key doctrines of democracy-

• The guarantee of equal dignity to all
• The public good of inclusiveness.

Criteria to identify hate speech:

1. The extremity of the speech.
2. Incitement
3. Status of the author of the speech.
4. Status of victims of the speech.
5. Potentiality of the speech.
6. Context of the Speech.

Regulation of Hate speech in India

• Constitutional provisions: Article 19(2) of the Constitution gives all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression but subject to “reasonable restrictions” for preserving inter alia “public order, decency or morality”.
• Statutory provisions:   India prohibits hate speech by several sections such as Section 95 of CRPC Section 124A or Section 153A or Section 153B or Section 292 or Section 293 or Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

Committees on Hate Speech

1. K Viswanathan Committee recommendations.

• A committee headed by former Lok Sabha Secretary General T.K. Viswanathan submitted a report recommending stricter laws to curb online hate speech
• The panel was formed after Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was scrapped by the Supreme Court in 2015.

Bezbaruah Committee

• The Bezbaruah Committee was constituted by the Centre in February 2014 in the wake of a series of racial attacks on persons belonging to the northeast
• Though the committee submitted its report in July 2014, the Home Ministry sent out letters to States for their opinion almost four years later, in February this year.

Laws against hate speech:

• Section 295A was also introduced to control series of communal violence.Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished.

Background of Assam and Mizoram conflict

• • The boundary between present-day Assam and Mizoram is 165 km long and the issue over that dates back to the colonial era when Mizoram was known as Lushai Hills, a district of Assam.

    

• The genesis of present conflict is rooted in the British led demarcated internal boundaries on grounds of administrative needs.
• Government of Mizoram demands that present boundaries must be demarcated based on the 1875 notification, which was notified under Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR) Act, 1873, also known as the Inner Line Regulation (ILR). Whereas the Assam government follows the 1933 demarcation.
• While 1873 notification demarcated a line between the plains of Assam (Cachar) and neighbouring hill areas (Lushai) inhabited by tribal communities in Mizoram, 1933 notification was issued after the annexation of the Lushai Hills demarcates a boundary between Lushai Hills and Manipur.

What is the present Issue? 

• According to an agreement between governments of Assam and Mizoram some years ago, the status quo should be maintained in no man’s land in the border area.
• As per the recent info., People from Lailapur (Assam) broke the status quo and allegedly constructed some temporary huts, in response people from Mizoram side went and set fire on them.
• Mizoram civil society groups blame “illegal Bangladeshis” on the Assam side who came and destroyed huts, cut plants and pelted stones on policemen.