A secular republic’s sacrilege problem
A state legislature enacted a stricter anti-sacrilege law amending an earlier 2008 state law protecting the Guru Granth Sahib from desecration
The amended law's definition of "sacrilege" extends beyond physical acts of damage, defacement, burning, tearing, or theft, to also cover words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations, and electronic means
The law prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment (extendable to twenty years) with fines between ₹2 lakh and ₹10 lakh for the base offence, rising to a minimum of ten years (extendable to life imprisonment) where sacrilege is committed with intent to disrupt communal harmony
The state government has maintained that, as an amendment to an existing state law, the legislation falls within the state's legislative competence and does not require Presidential assent
The expanded scope of "sacrilege" to include expressive conduct (words, signs, representations) has renewed debate on the criminalisation of religious offence in a constitutionally secular state
Freedom of Religion — Articles 25 and 26
Article 25 guarantees all persons freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own religious affairs. Neither article, by itself, criminalises insult to religious sentiment — that function is performed by ordinary criminal law, tested against the reasonable-restriction framework of Article 19.
Key Details
- Article 25(1): freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health
- Article 25(2) allows the State to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice and to provide for social welfare/reform, including throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes
- Article 26 protects a religious denomination's right to establish institutions, manage its own affairs in matters of religion, and own/administer property
- These provisions protect religious practice and belief; laws criminalising insult to religion (like Section 295A-type provisions) are typically justified as reasonable restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2), not as a direct application of Article 25/26
The Punjab law protects the sanctity of a specific religious scripture; its constitutional validity would ultimately be tested not under Article 25/26 directly, but under the free-speech framework of Article 19, since its widened scope now criminalises "words" and "representations" — expressive conduct.
Section 295A IPC / Section 299 BNS — India's "Blasphemy-Type" Provision
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, effective 1 July 2024) punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It is the closest general analogue in Indian law to a "blasphemy law," and is the doctrinal backdrop against which state-specific sacrilege laws like Punjab's must be understood.
Key Details
- Constitutionality upheld by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), which held the provision valid as a reasonable restriction on free speech "in the interests of public order" under Article 19(2)
- The Court read down the section to require "deliberate and malicious intention," excluding insults offered unwittingly, carelessly, or without such intent
- BNS Section 299 retains the same core structure and intent requirement but explicitly extends coverage to "electronic means," and carries a punishment of imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both; it is a cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable offence
- Legal scholars have argued the Ramji Lal Modi precedent merits reconsideration, given its narrow "public order" reasoning has been questioned by later free-speech jurisprudence
Punjab's sacrilege law operates independently of, and in addition to, BNS Section 299 — it targets sacrilege against one specific scripture with far higher minimum sentences (7 years to life, versus up to 3 years under BNS 299), raising the question of proportionality that is central to the article's constitutional critique.
Secularism as Basic Structure — S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Secularism was declared a part of the Constitution's "basic structure" — the set of core features that even a constitutional amendment cannot abrogate — by a nine-judge Constitution Bench in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), primarily decided in the context of Article 356 (President's Rule) but with lasting doctrinal significance for how the state must treat religion.
Key Details
- Built upon the basic structure doctrine first evolved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Held that the Indian Constitution embodies "positive secularism" — the state treats all religions equally and remains neutral in religious matters, rather than a strict separationist model
- Held that a state government's actions undermining secularism could, if based on objective material, justify invocation of Article 356
- Widely cited as authority that no organ of the state — including a state legislature — can enact laws that privilege one religion over others in a manner inconsistent with the secular character of the Constitution
The article's framing — "a secular republic's sacrilege problem" — invokes this precedent: a law offering heightened, scripture-specific criminal protection (far exceeding the general BNS 299 penalty) tests where the line lies between protecting religious sentiment and the state's constitutional obligation of religious neutrality.
Free Speech and Reasonable Restrictions — Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2)
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(2) permits the State to impose "reasonable restrictions" on this right on specified grounds, including public order, decency or morality, and defamation. Any law criminalising "words, signs, or representations" — rather than only physical acts — must be justified against this framework.
Key Details
- Article 19(2) grounds: sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence
- Courts apply a proportionality test: the restriction must have a rational nexus with one of the enumerated grounds and must not be excessive
- "Public Order" is Entry 1 of the State List (Seventh Schedule), giving state legislatures competence to legislate on it — the constitutional basis for a state (rather than only Parliament) enacting a sacrilege law
- Criminal Law (including matters covered by IPC/BNS) falls in the Concurrent List (List III), meaning both Parliament and state legislatures can legislate, subject to Article 254 (Union law prevails in case of repugnancy, unless the state law has received Presidential assent)
Because Punjab's law amends its own pre-existing 2008 state Act (not the central BNS), the state government has argued it needs only the Governor's assent, not the President's — a live question about the outer limits of state legislative competence under Articles 246 and 254 when a state law's subject-matter overlaps with central criminal law provisions like BNS Section 299.
- Punjab's amended sacrilege law replaces the 2008 Satkar Act; passed unanimously in a special Assembly session; Governor's assent granted April 2026
- Sacrilege (base offence): minimum 7 years, extendable to 20 years imprisonment; fine ₹2 lakh–₹10 lakh
- Sacrilege with intent to disrupt communal harmony: minimum 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment; fine ₹5 lakh–₹25 lakh
- Attempt to commit sacrilege: 3 to 5 years imprisonment; fine ₹1 lakh–₹3 lakh
- Comparable central provision (BNS Section 299, replacing IPC Section 295A from 1 July 2024): up to 3 years imprisonment, or fine, or both
- Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957): upheld Section 295A as a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2)
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): nine-judge bench; declared secularism part of the Constitution's basic structure
- Public Order: State List (List II), Entry 1, Seventh Schedule; Criminal Law: Concurrent List (List III)