Christians — seemingly a soft target for communal elements — protested against a blasphemous décor in Goregaon Social pub last week. But, it did not evoke much response from elected representatives of the constituency. The controversy has now died down despite several hundred complaints being repeatedly filed by various groups under Section 295 A of the IPC. This section was introduced to curtail blasphemy and hate speech against any religion or community.
The legislative history of Section 295 A is interesting. A book, Rangila Rasul, was published in 1927 which dealt with the marriages and sex life of Prophet Muhammad. The publisher was arrested but later acquitted in April 1929 because there was no law against an insult to any religion. The publisher was murdered in Court by Ilm-ud-din who was later honoured with the honorifics ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’. Indian Muslims demanded a law against insults to religious feelings which is why the British government enacted Section 295 (A). In 1957, a five-judge bench of the SC affirmed in RamjiLalModi versus State of UP that section 295 A is a valid restriction on art or free speech which means you cannot misuse culinary art to insult religious feelings.
To return to the present, Goregaon Social opened for business in August with stained glass windows imitating a cathedral showing Mother Mary holding a chain while Jesus was shown with a leather bag. Mother Mary is revered by Christians as the Virgin Mother of Jesus. There was “outrageous depiction of various saints and religious items from the Holy Bible, which is blasphemous to Christianity,” according to a statement by an NGO, Watchdog Foundation. “The bar area had a backdrop of a Tabernacle set up…the seating arrangement in the bar was that of church pews. Even the messages inscribed on the benches were from the Holy Bible.” In their police complaint, made on last Tuesday night, Watchdog Foundation demanded the arrest of the pub’s owner for outraging religious sentiments under Section 295A of the IPC. Ironically, a mainline newspaper which splashed the news on page 2 claimed the police action in registering an FIR against “unknown persons” was hasty because intention is a vital part of Section 295 A and also Sections 153 (A) and 153(B) of the IPC which deal with inciting hatred between Indian citizens on grounds of race, religion, caste among others. Every culprit will claim he did not intend to outrage feelings of any group. Media reports alleged the police deliberately did not name anybody in the FIR to dilute the case although the owners’ identities can be easily found. The very action of depicting Jesus, Mary and the saints on stained glass windows, which are used in hallowed precincts, shows the intention of the owners to attract customers by blaspheming Christianity. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to escape liability and this is why Goregaon Social pub owner RiyazAmlani and the owner of Five Fat Monks bar AbhirKhanna must both be charge-sheeted because they had obviously overseen the décor and justified (mis)using the name Holy Trinity in a chicken-prawn-lab dish. It is absurd to claim that they did not want to hurt religious sentiments when the entire décor was that of a church.
In July this year, 5000 Catholics protested because the 400-year-old Mahim church was wrongly shown in the city’s development plan while other churches were not shown at all. This would mean that the authorities intended to raze these churches or use the plots for some other purpose. In March 2015, posters showing the Marathi manoos crucified against the backdrop of highrises were put up in Byculla, CST and Girgaum to protest the same development plan. Raj Thackeray allegedly conceptualised the artwork himself. MNS spokespersons defended their chief by saying the cross was not used as a religious symbol although the cross is a unique symbol of Jesus Christ. The Maharashtra NavnirmanMahapalikaKamgarKarmachariSena, the Maharashtra NavnirmanSena’s s union in the BMC plastered these posters in public.
If deeply-revered MNS icons like ChhatrapatiShivaji or the late Bal Thackeray had been used in public, there would have been an inferno. But, predictably, the police did not register an FIR against anybody last year. This is why sections 295 A and 153 (A) and 153 (B) must be narrowly defined so it can be used against offenders even if they claim there was no intention to hurt anybody’s sentiments. India is a secular republic and so the police should immediately register an FIR against any business or political entity which hurts the religious sentiments of others irrespective of an apology or belated attempts to justify their actions like the MNS did in March last year.
The author holds a PhD in Media Law. He is a journalist-cum-lawyer practising in the Bombay High Court
