Punjab law against blasphemy unconstitutional, open invitation to oppressive misuse: CCG

The Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), a platform of former civil servants has, in an open communication declared the proposed the Punjab Prevention of Offences against Holy Scriptures Bill, 2025 (PPOHS Act), recently been referred by the state legislature to a Committee, as unconstitutional. In a long and reasoned analysis of the Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scriptures Bill, 2025 (PPOHS Act), signed by close to eighty persons, the group of former bureaucrats has pointed out how it the proposed law is inherently unconstitutional and open to misuse with its loose definitions. The proposed law has only recently been referred by the state legislature to a Committee. Apart from other detailed pointers on the proposed law, this communication by CCG recalls how, on two earlier occasions – in 2015 and 2018 – the Punjab Government had sought to amend the provision relating to sacrilege contained in Section 295A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now re-enacted as Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Both attempts proved unsuccessful as the proposed amendments failed to meet the test of constitutionality.

The entire text of the open letter may be read here:

To:
The Chairperson,
The Select Committee on “The Punjab Prevention of Offences against Holy
Scriptures Act, 2025,
Punjab Legislative Assembly,
Chandigarh-160001

Subject: Objections to “The Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scriptures Act, 2025.”

Dear Chairperson,

We, the undersigned, are members of Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), a collective of former public servants belonging to the All India Services and Central Civil Services. Our group, which has no political affiliations, is committed to the promotion of the foundational values of our Republic and the observance of norms of Constitutional conduct. Anguished over the continuing decline in secular, democratic and liberal values of the Constitution, we write to place on record our grave concerns regarding The Punjab Prevention of Offences against Holy Scriptures Act, 2025 (PPOHS Act) that stands referred to the Committee.

It will be pertinent to recall here that on two earlier occasions – in 2015 and 2018 – the Punjab Government had sought to amend the provision relating to sacrilege contained in Section 295A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now re-enacted as Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Both attempts proved unsuccessful as the proposed amendments failed to meet the test of constitutionality.

In an Open Letter dated September 3, 2018 addressed to the then Chief Minister of Punjab CCG had strongly opposed the 2018 amendment on grounds of incompatibility with the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The letter also highlighted its potential for misuse and detriment to the State’s social fabric. These objections apply with equal force to the proposal under consideration.

We submit that the move of the Punjab Government to enact a Special Law supplementing Section 299 of the BNS constitutes an assault on India’s democratic and constitutional foundations. By adopting loosely and broadly constructed definitions of “Holy Scripture” and “Offences,” the draft Bill abandons the basic jurisprudential safeguards of criminal justice. In a constitutional democracy, statutes prescribing draconian punishments, such as life imprisonment and severe monetary penalties, must stipulate the establishment of mens rea. The proposed Act discards this standard, extending criminal liability to even accidental or bona fide acts involving religious texts. Such an Act will effectively impose strict liability in criminal law, a concept alien to due process and incompatible with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The import of strict liability into criminal law militates against the principle that penal sanctions must be reserved for deliberate acts. In doing so, the proposed legislation risks criminalizing protected expression, chilling legitimate activity, and reducing the rule of law to an instrument of repression.

Essentially, our opposition to the proposed legislation rests on the following grounds.

• Draconian laws against sacrilege and blasphemy go against the very grain of a secular polity like ours. Instead of circumscribing the role of religion in matters of the state, the proposed Act will only enlarge it. It will also reinforce sectarian tendencies and strengthen the hands of religious extremists of various hues.
• Blasphemy laws imperil the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Constitution. Besides inhibiting free speech, they give a handle to anyone claiming to be hurt to pursue ill-founded and motivated prosecutions. They also discourage serious research and re-interpretation of religious texts, consolidating the hold of religious fundamentalism. Moreover, laws seeking to restrict freedoms of speech and belief engender spiralling demands for more and more restrictive laws. It has been observed that wherever sacrilege has been made a major offence, it has “fostered an environment of intolerance and impunity, and led to violations of a broad range of human rights”.  (Freedom House, 2010).
• Experience of the implementation of blasphemy laws across the border and in theocratic states elsewhere shows that they are often deployed against religious and other minorities and weaker sections to demoralise and subjugate them and also to settle personal and political scores. The risk of exacerbation of communal tensions is patent in a state like Punjab, where sects considered as heretical by the established orthodoxy have a significant following amongst Dalits.
• Existing provisions in the BNS (formerly the IPC) are quite adequate to deal with insults to religion and scriptures. The incidence of such acts cannot be curbed by enhancing the severity of the punishment prescribed. Only the certitude and swiftness of trial and punishment can act as a real deterrent, and that is predicated on an effective criminal justice system backed by political and administrative will.
• The proposed statute is bad in law. It is poorly drafted: the term ‘sacrilege’ is undefined and the definition of ‘Holy Scriptures’ is open-ended, speaking of ‘Scriptures considered sacred and held as ‘Holy’ by respective religious denominations’. The rationale of listing the religious texts of only four major faiths is unclear and inscrutable. In the case of Hinduism, only one text is cited, whereas a multitude of texts commencing with the Vedas are held sacred by the Hindus.
• By prescribing life imprisonment, the proposed amendment makes sacrilege a major offence. This is excessive and disproportionate in view of the Supreme Court ruling on Sec. 295-A IPC (in Ramjilal Modi vs State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 620) to the effect that the said provision attracting a maximum penalty of 4 years could apply only to the “aggravated form of insult to religion”.
• It is evident that a legislation that has not been thought through as to its ramifications, is imprecise in its definition of what constitutes an offence and is capable of multiple interpretations, is bound to be exploited by vested interests for their partisan ends, and aggravate the risk of police repression.
• The nation has already paid a heavy price for our past sins of pandering to extremist sentiments of various religions for short-term political ends. This has brought about a situation today where the very idea of an inclusive, pluralistic and liberal India and Indian-ness is endangered. The empowerment of sectarian and illiberal ideas and ideologies has resulted in the targeting of minorities and a general increase in social disharmony. The need of the hour is for all responsible stakeholders to act to reduce the space provided to religious fundamentalists of all kind – not open up further space to them.

At the current juncture, when the need to uphold our secular values has become more critical than ever before, we sincerely hope that the Legislature will stand by those values and urge the Hon’ble Committee to recommend the withdrawal of the Bill in its entirety.

Satyameva Jayate

Constitutional Conduct Group (79 signatories, as below)

Related:

Defiling religious texts to carry same sentence as murder in Punjab!

Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan

Indian Ulema Must Oppose Anti-Blasphemy Laws

Corporal Punishment for Blasphemy or Apostasy not in line with Quranic Ethos?