"BNS Section 299 Misuse Threatens Free Speech and Creative Freedom"
Cognisable offence
police can register FIR and arrest without prior court warrant or sanction.
Non-bailable offence
bail is not a right of the accused; only a court can grant it at its discretion.
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was introduced by British colonial authorities in 1927. It was a direct legislative response to communal unrest triggered by a provocative pamphlet satirising the Prophet Muhammad's personal life. The British administration, concerned about public order among a population it considered volatile, created a criminal offence for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. This provision was cognisable and non-bailable, meaning police could arrest without a warrant and bail was not automatic.
When India adopted its Constitution in 1950, Article 19(1)(a) guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, Article 19(2) permitted the state to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of, among other things, public order, decency, morality, and the sovereignty and integrity of India. Section 295A was retained under this constitutional framework. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the IPC, re-codified this provision as Section 299, preserving its essential character: a cognisable, non-bailable offence for deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Notably, Britain itself abolished its own blasphemy law in 2008, while India retained and re-enacted the colonial provision.
The core legal problem with Section 299 is the translation of a deeply subjective concept, hurt religious feelings, into a serious criminal offence. The offence is cognisable, so police can register an FIR and arrest without prior judicial approval. It is non-bailable, so the accused cannot claim bail as a right. The threshold for filing a complaint is extremely low: any individual anywhere in the country can approach a police station and allege that their religious sentiments have been wounded by a book, a film, a painting, or a social media post.
This creates what legal scholars call a heckler's veto: the most intolerant segment of society effectively gains the power to silence any expression it finds offensive. The mechanism is not primarily the eventual conviction, courts often acquit or quash proceedings years later, but the process itself. An accused writer or filmmaker faces multiple FIRs filed in different states, requiring travel to distant courts, legal expenses, and the constant threat of arrest. …
With reference to Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, consider the following statements:
1.It re-codifies Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalised deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
2.It is a cognisable offence, meaning police can register an FIR and arrest without a prior court warrant.
3.It is a bailable offence, meaning the accused has a right to bail upon arrest.
How many of the above statements are correct?
With reference to the Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which of the following statements is correct?
Which of the following constitutional provisions permits the Indian state to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression on grounds of public order, decency, and morality?
Consider the following pairs:
Legal provision — Key characteristic
1.Section 299 BNS — Cognisable and non-bailable offence
2.Article 19(1)(a) — Guarantees freedom of speech and expression
3.Article 19(2) — Permits restrictions on grounds including public order and decency
4.Section 295A IPC — Introduced in 1947 after Independence
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account