Religious Sensitives and Censorship: Exploring Freedom of Expression in a Multi-Religious Society

 Author: Meenakshi Yarramshetti, Mahindra University.

In multi religious societies, the conflict between religious sensibilities and freedom of expression is especially intense. The coexistence of individuals from various religious backgrounds, each with their own distinct beliefs and customs, characterizes these cultures. Although it is a fundamental human right, the freedom of expression can occasionally clash with the need to uphold unity in society and respect religious sensibilities. Basically, considering these conflicting interests, constitutional and statutory provisions have to be explained taking into consideration the current society. In India, Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian constitution treats the right to freedom of speech and expression but such right is not absolute as is provided in Article 19 (2) where it states that the said right shall not be deemed to include any right to make or publish defamatory matter. Other laws are equally violated in other jurisdictions in what is usually argued as employed in an effort to ban hate speech and acts of violence. Nevertheless, when used to suppress dissent or criticism they pose a real threat to the democracies of countries where they are implemented. 

Religious sensitivities, Censorship, Freedom of expression, Multi-religious society, Religious sentiments.

Freedom of speech involves Expressing opinions, gathering information, engaging in debates and also involves Criticizing like challenging government policies and individuals. Religious sensitivities arise when concerns or emotions that people or organizations have when their religious practices or beliefs are overlooked, misinterpreted, or cause offense. Sensitivities may have their origins as they have been existing since a long period in historical, cultural, or individual experiences. Restricting or suppressing speech, publications, or other kinds of communication is known as censorship. It can be enforced by organizations, governments, or private citizens. Subjectivity of the offense is one of the main challenges.  Therefore, it is not uncommon to find situations where the definition of objectionable contents varies considerably and depends on different values of persons, history and society.  The same object that one group will consider artistic; others will consider exceptionally sacrilegious.  This subjectivity again makes it hard to come up with more lenient social or legal means of settling these disputes.  Besides, censoring decisions often represent power relations, and thus, the oppressors may silence the minority more effectively than the people with less power. The complicated and much disputed topic of religious sensitivities and censorship overlaps. On one hand, the right to free speech is an essential one that enables people to voice their opinions without worrying about consequences. However, religious sensitivities may be justifiable worries that need to be taken into consideration. Multi-religious societies are societies of high cultural and spiritual pluralism by their own definition. The five religions among them are Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism can be found in India. Freedom of speech describes a complex of delicate situations in which the individual may have the right to utter certain opinions while affecting the other person and his beliefs. When such interconnections give rise to ‘distinguish offences,’ there is demand for censorship, to avoid disturbing community harmony and social stability.  

Scholars have greatly reflected on how best to balance the right to religious feelings and cultures with the rights to freedom of speech. For instance, in Bhattacharya (2017), the author reveals how the religious system requires protection under law, at the same time, the over-protection results in a high level of censorship which is against free speech and constructive debate. Likewise, Parekh (2005) considers multicultural societies, stressing that the legal regulation of religious sensitiveness should be balanced because of the freedom of an individual. These works form the building block in understanding the core tension but fail to offer sufficiently nuanced guidance on how these interests can be harmonized across different societies. A preponderance of research works suggest that censorship undermines freedom of thought and disgraces diversity of opinion. The involvement of multiculturalism in determining the legal and social approaches to describing or responding to religious feelings has been well elaborated by scholars in law like Modood (2013) who said that multicultural policies existing most of the time confront group rights with individual liberty and therefore may cause conflicts. However, such studies do not turn to some of the wider consequences of such policies in the matters of freedom of speech and democratic thinking in multicultural societies.  The primary challenge in exploring religious sensitivities and censorship in a multi religious society is striking a balance between the necessity to uphold the unity of society and respect various religious views and the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The modern, globalized world's growing interconnection and cross-cultural exchange, which can cause increased sensitivity and conflict, worsens this tension. I want to explore how governments and other institutions can effectively balance the interests of different religious groups while promoting multicultural unity and avoiding excessive censorship. And also to focus on potential negative consequences of censorship on freedom of expression, critical thinking, and the development of diverse perspectives. While defining limits of censorship, similarly to discuss where the line should be drawn between protecting religious sentiments and safeguarding freedom of expression.

The research methodology for the project “Religious Sensitivities and Censorship: Exploring freedom of Expression in a Multi-Religious Society” will involve a combination of doctrinal legal research, case law analysis, and comparative study of statutes. The data for the research would primarily collect from Constitutional provisions, Case laws, Statutory frameworks. Peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and commentaries accessed through databases like JSTOR, Google Scholar, etc. Analyzing judicial reasoning in landmark cases to understand how courts balance these competing interests. Identifying trends in legal responses to conflicts between freedom of expression and religious sensitivities. To prevent bias or misrepresentation, sensitive topics like religion will be addressed with objectivity and deference.

Religious sensitivities concern feelings and cultural attachment people or groups may have towards religion, religious practice, objects and rites. In India, often observed in the population with a mixture of the recognized religions of the world, these considerations define the concepts of propriety in the population, and can act as a decisive factor in legal and political processes. Hurting the religious feelings of others in many cases leads to an outburst of suppressed anger that can result in everything from peaceful demonstrations to riots. As a result, governments, courts and various other regulatory authorities often find themselves in the middle of the right of freedom of speech and equality and non-discrimination of communities. Religious sensitivities involve humane and cultural appreciation that people or communities have over their religions, rituals, emblems, and customs. In India especially where religion is instrumental or central in the definition of individual and social citizenship, these matters impact on the discourse, law and policy. Excluding material that is either insulting, trivializing, or vilifying religious symbols, gods, or rituals. Some past incidents create some form of radical sensitivity to certain depictions or stories in communities. Restriction of the freedom of speech in order to protect religious feelings is usually justified on grounds of preserving harmony in a diverse society. In defining what constitutes “offense,” people and groups differ greatly, so it is almost impossible to set a line that should not be crossed. 

Censorship means the prohibition or control of speech or certain written, spoken, or broadcast material considered to be distasteful or undesirable. In India, censorship is used on media, literature and art to regulate religious feelings and for many other reasons. Through IPC laws, Cinematograph Act, and IT Act laws imposed and came into action in the country. It is enforced by regulatory agencies Include the CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification).  Broadcaster and content producers willingly self-censor in order to preempt a backlash. Religious concerns combined with censorship are a very complex issue in any country. Censorship is justified as a means of managing or preventing conflicts for the provision of harmonious pluralism but it most of the time creates a controversy over flexibility and freedom of speech. The Constitution of India contains freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) still, this freedom is not unrestricted. Article 19(2) permits the limitations of this freedom in the interest of public order, morality or decency.  This is particularly true when artistic, literary, or media creations challenge accepted morals or raise questions about the existing order of things, religious doctrine, etc.

In India, the junction of artistic expression, social conventions, and the sensibilities of a diverse populace frequently leads to cultural conflicts and censorship. These disagreements bring to light conflicts between the need to uphold cultural values and the right to free speech, sparking important discussions in the legal and social spheres. It is not unusual for India to find itself in the middle of art and sensitivity because of its infinite pluralism. Trailers of a country that has its core values established in religion and culture, it is always artistic writings and creativity that challenge or compromise societal set standards that tend to cause public outrage and judicial cases. These cultural tensions highlight the tensions between the need to preserve social harmony in an integrated society and freedom of speech, which is a core value of India’s democracy. For this reason, censorship is employed to solve these disputes in order to maintain order or prevent continued agitation. This process, however, usually straddles the line between limiting individual liberty and defending societal norms. India has felt the need to balance artistic freedom and address the grievances of affected communities as both legal and regulatory structures due to a series of high-profile controversies in art, social media, writing, and movies. 

• Padmavat (2018): Historical Sensitivities and Censorship

Film director Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Padmaavat received a lot of outrage and threats from the Rajput groups including the Karni sena who accused the film of historical inaccuracies and disrespect towards the Rajput culture. People were apparently incensed by reports of a dream sequence between Rani Padmavati and Alauddin Khilji. Riots erupted, culminating in attacks on property, and threats to the lives of the film makers. As we have ascertained, several states imposed preemptive bans.

The Supreme Court overturned state restrictions on the movie and supported the filmmakers’ right to freedom of expression if the film had received CBFC classification. To calm down the enraged protesters, Bhansali promised to change the movie’s title among other aspects such as changing the title from Padmavati to Padmavat. 

• Prakash Rajput & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2018 & other judgments.

This case was filed in The Supreme Court of India. The producers of Padmavat rejected these bands on the ground of infringement of Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech and expression, also including Article 19(2) which allows reasonable restrictions on this freedom only for specified grounds, such as public order, decency, or morality. It follows that states cannot rest their decisions upon mere suppositions as to the law-and-order impacts of banned materials, if there is no sufficient evidence pointing to the material as likely to lead to disruptions. The court affirmed the freedom of speech and expression arguing that a film certified by CBFC cannot be blocked by states. The movie was later released across India with some special message scrolling before the movie but this controversy shows how free India is for artistic expression and how cautious it is for people’s religious feelings. Few of the important outcomes of this dispute were that a certified film should be understood as making all film checks for the viewer’s consumption. States cannot deny exhibition based on generalized apprehensions of unrest. An obligation rests on states to protect threats against the public order posed by groups against the movie and not treat those expressions as unlawful. The artistic community has to be given a fair ‘leverage’ under Article 21 to guarantee their right to life by not being censored or threatened with violence.

• M.F. Hussain’s case

The MF Husain cases (2006) referred to two main controversies, the first being regarding the portrayal of religious figures in art which most groups considered a violation of the offender’s rights of free speech or artistic freedom. Such incidents were related to the works of Maqbool Fida Husain an Indian painter who had painted pictures and many other works that were understood to be obscene both Hindu deities and goddesses. An FIR was filed against Husain for outrage of religious feelings. He was taken to civil courts for a lawsuit on the grounds that he has contravened section 123 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He also felt a pressure built upon him, that he has to leave India due to threats, and the controversies of his work. He eventually went into self-imposed exile in 2006, citing threats to his life and personal safety, leaving behind his legacy as one of India's most celebrated yet controversial modern artists. The legal issues were focused on whether Husain had a right to freedom of expression which could be restrained by religious sensitiveness. The main controversy was in whether Expression right granted under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution allow Section 295A to be struck down or not when it offends religious sentiments which is protected under Article 25 of the Indian constitution and the law meant to prevent hate speech or incitement to violence. In India, the challenging balance between religious beliefs and creative expression is best illustrated by the MF Husain dispute. The case focused on the legal issues of whether art, regardless of how contentious, is protected by the Constitution or if freedom of speech and expression should be restricted to avoid offending religious communities. In the end, the case highlighted the conflict between individual rights and collective sensitivities and indicated the necessity for more precise rules on the bounds of artistic freedom in a multicultural society. 

• Perumal Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2016)

The issue revolved around the controversy over a novel allegedly insulting religious traditions. The Madras High Court upheld the author's right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a), stating that fiction cannot be judged by the standards of religious orthodoxy. The Court observed that creative works are crucial for societal progress. Author Perumal Murugan faced backlash and threats for his novel Madhorubagan, which depicted a fictional ritual in a Tamil community. Protestors claimed the novel insulted their religious practices.  

• Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)

The Supreme Court held that a ban could be justified only if the content posed a real and substantial threat to public order. It stressed that mere offense or hurt feelings are insufficient grounds for censorship. The issue was about a ban on a book allegedly insulting religious figures. Thus, more specifically the Supreme Court stated that they could only ban content if the content was likely to cause actual and significant interference to public peace. That this form of censorship cannot be used just because they are offended or their feelings hurt. A Kannada book on Basaveshwara – a great saint was reportedly offensive, which led to protests and the book was banned by the Karnataka government.

Statutory laws involving Section 295A, Section 153A, Section 298 and Section 505(2): of IPC, 1860 (Indian Penal Code). Section 295A criminalizes willful and malicious actions meant to offend religious sentiments by disparaging religion or religious convictions. It Needs a deliberate attempt to hurt or insult. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), a landmark case, maintained Section 295 A's legality as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). Section 153A of IPC punishes actions that undermine the preservation of agreement and incite animosity between various groups based on language, race, or religion. The MF Husain Cases (2006), a landmark case, demonstrated how this clause has been abused against artists who are accused of insulting religious feelings. Section 298 of IPC prohibits statements or actions meant to offend someone's religious sentiments. Section 505(2) of IPC prohibits remarks that incite animosity or animosity among religious groups. And the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has the authority to refuse or impose conditions on films that hurt religious sentiments, threaten public order and are deemed obscene or morally degrading. The Act has prevailed in cases like Prakash Rajput v. In the case of the Union of India (2018) cinema was policed and cut based on protests that it offended religious sensibilities.

Religious arguments on freedom of speech and expression do pose a lot of problems for India and have often called for a measured approach. Though there are legal means to look for redress, there should not be a reason for law to be used as a weapon. However, it is worth noting that in a mature democracy liberty of expressions, tolerant dissent, and recognition of diversity is healthy hence conflict of interest in a multi-religious society must be solved in this way of thinking.

In an expansive and diverse country like India, the conflict between freedom of expression and religious sensitivities is a recurring issue. India, a country with a strong constitutional structure and democratic ideals, acknowledges the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a). Individual liberties, such as the freedom to express oneself artistically, literally, or politically, are based on this right. Article 19(2), which permits the state to regulate expression in the sake of public order, decency, morality, and the protection of religious emotions, does not, however, grant it absoluteness and permits reasonable limitations. A careful balancing of these conflicting interests is required due to India's complex religious landscape, which includes numerous faiths, cultures, and customs. Religious sensitivities are quite subjective and can differ greatly amongst cultures, and they are frequently based on firmly held beliefs. Something that one group may find insulting may not be the same for another. The application of regulations intended to restrict speech that can potentially offend religious beliefs is made more difficult by this inherent subjectivity. Although the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in particular Sections 295A, 153A, and 505(2), offers a legal framework for dealing with words and conduct that could offend religious sentiments or cause discord among communities, these rules are frequently criticized for being overly expensive and prone to abuse. For example, insulting religion or religious beliefs is illegal under Section 295A, although courts have regularly challenged its implementation. Many contend that these laws have been used to suppress dissent, free speech, and artistic expression, frequently in relation to works of literature, art, or film that contradict dominant religious narratives. 

In addition to protecting public order and preserving the fragile fabric of religious harmony in a multi religious society, legal reforms and judicial safeguards should aim to guarantee that freedom of expression is not unnecessarily restricted. In this approach, India may overcome the difficulties presented by censorship and religious sensitivities while maintaining its democratic values. In the end, striking a balance between the protection of religious beliefs and the right to freedom of speech calls for a cautious and sensitive approach. Indian courts have correctly noted that the right to free speech is not absolute and must be used sensibly. In order for different religious views and viewpoints to live without fear of repression or bloodshed, society must promote tolerance. While acknowledging that their work affects a sensitive audience, writers, artists, and the media must nevertheless maintain the freedom to question, criticize, and spark debate. 

1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis, 8th Edition, 2018).

2. Shameek Sen, Right to Free Speech and Censorship: A Jurisprudential Analysis, Vol. 56, No. 2 (April-June 2014). 

3. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 – Sections 295A, 153A, 298, 505(2).

4. The Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Provisions regarding film censorship in India.