BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1957 SC 620
IPC 1860REPEALED
Section 295A
Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings
Replaced by: BNS 299
Non-BailableCognizable: CognizableMagistrate of the First Class
THE STATUTE
Original Text
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 or by visible representations or otherwise, insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished...
Simplified
Section 295A is one of the most contentious provisions in Indian criminal law — regularly invoked against artists, writers, filmmakers, comedians, and academics. It punishes deliberate and malicious insults to the religious beliefs of any class of citizens through words, signs, or visible representations. The 'deliberate and malicious' requirement is theoretically a high bar — honest criticism made without malicious intent to disturb public order is protected. In Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957), the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality as a reasonable restriction on free speech but required both deliberate malice AND the likelihood of public disorder. In practice, the provision is routinely invoked without satisfying these high standards, creating a significant chilling effect on artistic and academic expression.
Legal Evolution
Section 295A was added to the IPC in 1927 following the 'Rangila Rasul' case in Punjab, where the absence of a law against insulting religious founders led to massive communal unrest. Its constitutionality was upheld in Ramji Lal Modi (1957). The provision has been controversially used against films (Fanaa, Water, Da Vinci Code screenings), books (The Satanic Verses ban), art exhibitions, and stand-up comedians.
Landmark Precedents
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957)
RELEVANCE
Constitutional bench upheld Section 295A as a reasonable restriction on free speech — but required deliberate malicious intent AND the likelihood of disturbing public order.
Practical Scenarios
"Publishing a book designed to mock a religious prophet to incite communal violence — Section 295A."
"Creating online campaigns to outrage the religious beliefs of a minority community — Section 295A."
"An academic study critiquing religious practices — PROTECTED, not Section 295A."
Common Queries
No — the Supreme Court has clarified that 'honest and academic' criticism made without malicious intent to disturb public order does not attract Section 295A. The provision requires both deliberate malice AND the likelihood of public disorder.
Three ingredients: (1) deliberate and malicious act; (2) the act is intended to outrage religious feelings; (3) the outrage is of the religious feelings of any class by insulting religion or religious belief. 'Deliberate and malicious' is crucial — accidental insult, artistic expression without malicious intent, or genuine academic criticism is not Section 295A.
Section 295A is a criminal provision — it punishes individuals. A Section 295A FIR related to a book or film can lead to an interim court order affecting distribution. High Courts have the power to quash such FIRs under Section 482 if the content lacks deliberate malicious intent.
Yes. BNS Section 299 replaces IPC Section 295A. The same 'deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings' standard is preserved. The 3-year maximum punishment is unchanged. Social media content is now more expressly within the provision — the same deliberate malice standard applies.
Section 295A is among the most commonly misused provisions — FIRs are filed over books, cartoons, social media posts, and artistic works. The primary protection is Section 482 CrPC petition to the High Court. Courts examine whether the content has genuine malicious intent or merely expresses a viewpoint that some find offensive.