The Dangerous March Towards Blasphemy, Why Punjab’s New Law Is a Threat to India’s Secular Fabric
There was widespread objection to Shashi Tharoor’s warning about India becoming a “Hindu Pakistan” if the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) returned to power in 2019. But with each passing day, we are moving closer to Pakistan on one issue—blasphemy. This is deeply frustrating for those who teach criminal law, like this writer. Blasphemy has been abolished by most countries. Only some Muslim countries continue to have it. Why should India follow in their regressive steps? In Punjab, the Aam Aadmi Party government is now doing politics through a new law. A special assembly session was convened on April 13 to pass a stringent anti-sacrilege law on the desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib. The new provision goes beyond even Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, which provides for life imprisonment for defiling the Quran. Unlike the Pakistani law, Punjab’s new law provides for a fine of up to Rs 25 lakh and has removed the defence of insanity or unsoundness of mind—a protection that has been on our statute books since 1860. This is not a secular, progressive reform. It is a dangerous march towards the criminalisation of speech, thought, and belief.
The Blasphemy Law in India: A Colonial Relic Retained
This author had strongly argued before a joint parliamentary committee against the inclusion of the blasphemy law in Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, but the government preferred to retain this relic of the colonial era. The Indian Penal Code (and now the BNS) already contains provisions that penalise acts that insult religious beliefs or deliberately destroy religious texts. Section 295A of the IPC (and its equivalent in the BNS) punishes “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” Section 295 (destroying a place of worship) and Section 295B (injuring or defiling a sacred object) already exist. The argument for a separate blasphemy law is redundant at best and dangerous at worst.
Religious beliefs should not be enforced as societal norms by the state, as that places an unnecessary burden on citizens’ right to free speech. The state’s job is to protect the right of citizens to practice their religion, not to enforce the sanctity of religious texts. When the state criminalises speech that offends religious sensibilities, it steps into the realm of theology. It becomes the arbiter of what is sacred and what is blasphemous. That is not a role for a secular state.
Punjab’s New Law: More Draconian Than Pakistan’s
On April 13, the Punjab government convened a special assembly session to pass a stringent anti-sacrilege law on the desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib. The law is notable for its severity. Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code provides that “whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.” Pakistan’s blasphemy law is notoriously harsh, frequently used to target religious minorities and settle personal scores. It has led to lynchings, mob violence, and the murder of accused persons before they even see a courtroom.
Punjab’s new law goes even further. Unlike the Pakistani law, it provides for a fine of up to Rs 25 lakh. More troublingly, it has removed the defence of insanity or unsoundness of mind. This defence has been on our statute books since the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860. It is a fundamental protection for those who are mentally incapable of understanding the nature of their actions. Removing it for the crime of sacrilege means that a person who desecrates a religious text in a state of psychosis can be convicted and sentenced like a rational actor. This is not justice; it is cruelty.
The Allahabad High Court Ruling: Asserting a Religion is the “Only True Religion” as Blasphemy
Recently, Justice Saurabh Srivastava of the Allahabad High Court observed that any assertion that a particular religion is the “only true religion” implies “disparagement” of other faiths and is covered by the blasphemy provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code). This is a stunning interpretation. If a Christian says that Jesus is the only way to salvation, is that blasphemy against Islam? If a Muslim says that Muhammad is the final prophet, is that blasphemy against Sikhism? If a Hindu says that the Vedas are divinely revealed, is that blasphemy against Christianity?
The Preamble to our Constitution guarantees to every citizen “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship”. One is, therefore, entitled to the belief that his religion is the best and can express the same. This freedom of speech cannot be curtailed under Article 19(2) as blasphemy is not included as a ground on which there can be reasonable restrictions. The Allahabad High Court’s interpretation is a direct threat to this constitutional guarantee.
Fortunately, on April 10, the Supreme Court stayed the criminal proceedings against Rev. Father Vineet Vincent Pereira, who had been accused of hurting religious sentiments during prayer meetings. The Court’s intervention is welcome, but it is a temporary remedy. The underlying problem—the growing acceptance of blasphemy as a legitimate category of criminal law—remains.
The Historical Roots of Blasphemy: From Ancient Greece to Pakistan
In ancient Greece, the crime of blasphemy included speaking ill of the gods, disturbing the peace, and dishonouring the principles of government. The arrival of monotheism gave a new impetus to blasphemy. The origin of the Western understanding of blasphemy lies in the 13th century, when it evolved as a crime separate from heresy.
Almost immediately, challenges to the supremacy of God were considered as damaging the secular authority of the state. In passing sentence upon John Taylor in 1671, English Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale argued that attacks upon religion were attacks upon the law itself and thus blasphemy was treated as treason. In subsequent centuries, the crime of “heresy” in Western countries converted European society into a “persecuting society”. People were burned at the stake for their beliefs. Their property was confiscated. Their families were ruined.
The West has largely moved past this dark history. Blasphemy laws have been repealed in most democratic countries. The United States, under the First Amendment, protects even hateful speech about religion. The United Kingdom abolished its blasphemy laws in 2008. Germany allows criticism of religion as long as it does not incite violence. The trend is clear: liberal democracies have concluded that the state has no business punishing speech about the divine.
India, unfortunately, is moving in the opposite direction. The retention of blasphemy-like provisions in the BNS, the Punjab government’s new anti-sacrilege law, and the Allahabad High Court’s expansive interpretation of Section 295A all point to a growing intolerance for religious dissent.
The Political Economy of Blasphemy in Punjab
One hopes the Aam Aadmi Party government understands that it has to concentrate on more pressing issues of governance rather than the desecration of a religious book. Punjab faces serious challenges: the agrarian crisis, drug addiction, unemployment, and a fragile economy. The government was elected on a mandate of good governance, not religious policing.
Why then has the AAP government chosen to prioritise an anti-sacrilege law? The answer is likely political. The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), which traditionally represents Sikh religious interests, has been weakened. The AAP is trying to capture that space by positioning itself as the defender of Sikh faith. This is cynical politics. It is using religious sentiment to distract from governance failures.
Under the new law, mere accusations will be enough to bring on threats to those accused, and judges will not even be able to grant bail due to public protests and threats to the life of the accused. This is a recipe for mob justice. In Pakistan, accused blasphemers are often killed by mobs before their cases are heard. In India, we have already seen lynching for cow slaughter and for alleged sorcery. The same fate awaits those accused of sacrilege if the law does not provide protection.
The Supreme Court’s Role: A Step Forward, But Not Enough
The Supreme Court’s stay on proceedings against Rev. Father Vineet Vincent Pereira is a welcome intervention. The Court has historically protected free speech, most notably in the Shreya Singhal case (2015), which struck down Section 66A of the IT Act. The Court has also held that criticism of religion is not necessarily hate speech.
But the Court has also been inconsistent. In some cases, it has upheld restrictions on speech that offends religious sensibilities. The Court’s reluctance to strike down Section 295A is a case in point. The provision has been on the books since 1927, and despite repeated challenges, the Court has not declared it unconstitutional. The Court is awaiting an intervention.
The Court should take up the constitutionality of blasphemy laws suo motu. It should declare that the state has no business punishing speech about the divine. It should hold that the right to criticise religion is protected under Article 19(1)(a). It should strike down provisions that criminalise sacrilege, blasphemy, and insult to religious beliefs. Only then will India move away from the dangerous path it is treading.
Conclusion: A Threat to Secularism
India’s secularism is not the same as Western secularism. It does not require the state to be hostile to religion. It does require the state to be neutral. The state cannot favour one religion over another. It cannot enforce the sanctity of one religion’s text while ignoring another’s. It cannot criminalise criticism of one faith while tolerating criticism of another.
Punjab’s new law is a threat to secularism. It is a threat to free speech. It is a threat to minority rights. It is a threat to the mentally ill. It is a step towards the Pakistanisation of Indian criminal law. The AAP government should reconsider. The Supreme Court should intervene. And citizens should speak out. Blasphemy has no place in a democracy.
Q&A: Blasphemy Laws and Punjab’s Anti-Sacrilege Legislation
Q1: What is the new anti-sacrilege law passed by the Punjab government, and how does it compare to Pakistan’s blasphemy law?
A1: The Punjab government convened a special assembly session on April 13, 2026, to pass a stringent anti-sacrilege law on the desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib. Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code provides for “imprisonment for life” for defiling the Quran. Punjab’s new law goes further: it provides for a fine of up to Rs 25 lakh and has removed the defence of insanity or unsoundness of mind (a protection on Indian statute books since 1860). This means a person who desecrates a religious text in a state of psychosis can be convicted like a rational actor. The article states: “This is not a secular, progressive reform. It is a dangerous march towards the criminalisation of speech, thought, and belief.”
Q2: What did the Allahabad High Court rule regarding blasphemy, and why is it constitutionally problematic?
A2: Justice Saurabh Srivastava of the Allahabad High Court observed that any assertion that a particular religion is the “only true religion” implies “disparagement” of other faiths and is covered by the blasphemy provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The article argues this is a “stunning interpretation” because it would criminalise core religious beliefs. If a Christian says Jesus is the only way to salvation, or a Muslim says Muhammad is the final prophet, or a Hindu says the Vedas are divinely revealed—these could be deemed blasphemous. The Preamble guarantees “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.” Article 19(2) does not list blasphemy as a ground for reasonable restrictions on free speech. The Allahabad ruling is a “direct threat to this constitutional guarantee.”
Q3: Why does the article argue that India’s retention of blasphemy laws is regressive compared to global trends?
A3: The article notes that “blasphemy has been abolished by most countries. Only some Muslim countries continue to have it.” The West has largely moved past its dark history of persecuting heretics (burning people at the stake, confiscating property). The United States, under the First Amendment, protects even hateful speech about religion. The United Kingdom abolished its blasphemy laws in 2008. Germany allows criticism of religion as long as it does not incite violence. The article concludes: “liberal democracies have concluded that the state has no business punishing speech about the divine. India, unfortunately, is moving in the opposite direction.”
Q4: What are the political motivations behind the Punjab government’s anti-sacrilege law?
A4: The article argues the law is politically motivated. The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), which traditionally represents Sikh religious interests, has been weakened. The AAP is trying to “capture that space by positioning itself as the defender of Sikh faith.” This is “cynical politics” using “religious sentiment to distract from governance failures.” Punjab faces serious challenges: an agrarian crisis, drug addiction, unemployment, and a fragile economy. The government was elected on a mandate of good governance, not religious policing. The article asks: “One hopes the Aam Aadmi Party government understands that it has to concentrate on more pressing issues of governance rather than the desecration of a religious book.”
Q5: What does the article recommend the Supreme Court should do regarding blasphemy laws in India?
A5: The article notes that the Supreme Court stayed proceedings against Rev. Father Vineet Vincent Pereira (accused of hurting religious sentiments during prayer meetings) on April 10. However, the Court has been inconsistent and has not struck down Section 295A (the blasphemy provision) despite repeated challenges. The article recommends that the Court should:
-
Take up the constitutionality of blasphemy laws suo motu (on its own motion).
-
Declare that “the state has no business punishing speech about the divine.”
-
Hold that “the right to criticise religion is protected under Article 19(1)(a).”
-
Strike down provisions that criminalise sacrilege, blasphemy, and insult to religious beliefs.
The article warns that under the new Punjab law, “mere accusations will be enough to bring on threats to those accused, and judges will not even be able to grant bail due to public protests and threat to the life of the accused.” This is a “recipe for mob justice” similar to Pakistan, where accused blasphemers are often killed by mobs before their cases are heard. The article concludes: “Blasphemy has no place in a democracy.”
