Offences Relating to Religion under BNS: Chapter XVI Sections 298 to 302 and Landmark Cases

India is a country of many religions, each with its own places of worship, sacred objects, and rituals. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion under Articles 25 to 28. But the freedom of one person's religion must not be exercised in ways that outrage the religious feelings of others, damage places of worship, disturb religious assemblies, or defile burial places. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, addresses these offences through Chapter XVI, five provisions across Sections 298 to 302. Section 298 punishes defiling places of worship. Section 299 punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Section 300 punishes disturbing religious assemblies. Section 301 punishes trespassing on burial places. Section 302 punishes uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Together the provisions form the criminal law's framework for the coexistence of religions in India. This module walks through each section, the constitutional framework of religious freedom, the Ramji Lal Modi framework on Section 295A IPC, and the leading cases.

1. Introduction

Religion and the criminal law in India

India's constitutional commitment to secularism does not mean religious neutrality by the state; rather, it means equal respect for and treatment of all religions. The state protects the freedom of religion under Articles 25 to 28 and, correspondingly, protects religions from offensive conduct through Chapter XVI. The balance is delicate: the criminal law must protect religious sentiments without unduly restricting freedom of speech, artistic expression, and religious criticism.

Chapter XVI overviewed

Section	Offence	Punishment
Section 298	Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult religion	Up to 2 years, or fine, or both
Section 299	Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings	Up to 3 years, or fine, or both
Section 300	Voluntarily disturbing religious assembly lawfully engaged	Up to 1 year, or fine, or both
Section 301	Trespassing on burial places or funeral rites places	Up to 1 year, or fine, or both
Section 302	Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings	Up to 1 year, or fine, or both

Constitutional framework: Articles 25 to 28

The criminal law of religious offences operates within the constitutional framework of religious freedom:

Article 25: freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
Article 26: freedom of every religious denomination to manage its own religious affairs.
Article 27: no person compelled to pay taxes for promoting any religion.
Article 28: freedom regarding religious instruction in educational institutions.

2. Section 298 BNS: Injuring or Defiling Place of Worship

Text of Section 298

Section 298 BNS (formerly Section 295 IPC)

Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

The three ingredients

Destruction, damage, or defilement of a place of worship or object held sacred by any class of persons.
Intention to insult the religion of that class.
Or knowledge that the class is likely to consider the destruction, damage, or defilement as an insult to their religion.

The section protects places of worship of all religions: temples, mosques, churches, gurdwaras, and any other place regarded as a place of worship. Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both.

Application to specific incidents

Damage to temples during communal riots.
Defilement of mosques by throwing objects.
Damage to religious symbols and idols.
Defilement of sacred spaces (spitting in temples, urinating in mosques).
Destruction of religious icons or manuscripts.

3. Section 299 BNS: Outraging Religious Feelings

Text of Section 299

Section 299 BNS (formerly Section 295A IPC)

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 through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The four ingredients

Deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings.
Directed at any class of citizens of India (any religious group).
By any means: words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations, electronic means, or otherwise.
Insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class.

The 'deliberate and malicious' requirement

The mens rea is deliberate and malicious. This is a strict requirement:

Deliberate: purposefully done, not accidental.
Malicious: with the specific intent to outrage religious feelings.

This mens rea requirement is significant. Innocent artistic works, academic criticism, satirical commentary, or educational discussions do not attract Section 299, even if they touch on religious topics. The provision applies only where the intent is specifically to outrage religious feelings.

The Ramji Lal Modi framework

📖 Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620

The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of Section 295A IPC (now Section 299 BNS). The Court upheld the provision as a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech under Article 19(2), on the ground of public order. The Court emphasised that Section 295A applies only to deliberate and malicious insults, not to good-faith criticism or artistic works. The Court read the provision narrowly to avoid conflict with Article 19(1)(a). Rule: constitutional validity with narrow interpretation.

The Ramji Lal Modi framework has since guided Section 295A prosecutions. The key limitations:

Only deliberate and malicious insults, not good-faith criticism.
The insult must be capable of actually outraging religious feelings, not merely displeasing.
Innocent or educational discussions of religious topics are not covered.
Artistic works, however controversial, are protected unless the specific intent is to outrage.

4. Section 300 BNS: Disturbing Religious Assembly

Section 300 BNS (formerly Section 296 IPC)

Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Section 300 protects religious assemblies from disturbance. The section applies to:

Any assembly lawfully engaged in religious worship or ceremonies.
The disturbance must be voluntary (deliberate).

Punishment: up to one year, or fine, or both. Common contexts: deliberate obstruction of religious processions, disturbance during prayers, disruption of religious ceremonies for provocative purposes. The provision protects religious observances across all religions.

5. Section 301 BNS: Trespassing on Burial Places

Section 301 BNS (formerly Section 297 IPC)

Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby:

(a) commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sepulture or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites, or as a depository for the remains of the dead; or
(b) offers any indignity to any human corpse; or
(c) causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Section 301 protects burial places, funeral rites, and the dignity of human corpses. Three categories:

Trespass in places of worship, sepulture, funeral rites, or depositories for the dead.
Offering indignity to human corpses.
Disturbing assemblies performing funeral ceremonies.

The mens rea requires intent to wound feelings or insult religion, or knowledge that such wounding or insulting is likely. Punishment: up to one year, or fine, or both. The provision protects cemeteries, crematoria, funeral processions, and the physical dignity of the dead across all religions.

6. Section 302 BNS: Wounding Religious Feelings by Words

Text of Section 302

Section 302 BNS (formerly Section 298 IPC)

Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

The mens rea: deliberate intent

Section 302 requires deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Four means covered:

Uttering words.
Making sounds.
Making gestures.
Placing objects.

The conduct must be in the hearing, sight, or perception of the specific person whose feelings are to be wounded. Punishment: up to one year, or fine, or both.

Application in modern communication contexts

Section 302 has taken on new significance in the era of social media and electronic communication. Where a person deliberately targets religious sentiments through online posts, videos, or messages, Section 302 may apply. The specific challenge in modern applications: identifying the intent and the specific victim whose feelings were wounded.

📖 Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, (2017) 7 SCC 760

The Supreme Court considered a case where the cricketer had been accused of hurting religious sentiments through a magazine photograph. The Court held that Section 298 IPC (now Section 302 BNS) requires the specific intent to wound religious feelings, and mere use of religious iconography in an artistic or commercial context, without such intent, does not attract the provision. Rule: intent to wound must be established.

7. Constitutional Framework: Freedom of Religion

Article 25: freedom of conscience and religion

Article 25 provides that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion. This freedom is subject to public order, morality, health, and the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The state may regulate secular activities associated with religious practice.

Article 26: freedom to manage religious affairs

Article 26 provides that every religious denomination or section thereof has the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; manage its own affairs in matters of religion; own and acquire property; and administer such property in accordance with law.

Article 27: no religious taxes

Article 27 provides that no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated for the promotion of any particular religion or religious denomination.

Article 28: religious instruction in schools

Article 28 provides that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.

8. Balance with Freedom of Speech

Article 19(1)(a) and reasonable restrictions

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.

Chapter XVI provisions are reasonable restrictions on the grounds of public order and morality. Their constitutional validity has been consistently upheld, subject to the limiting principles laid down by the courts.

The Kedar Nath Singh reading applied to religion offences

The Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962) principle, developed for sedition, has been applied to Chapter XVI offences: only speech with tendency to actually create public disorder or communal disturbance is covered. Mere academic criticism, satirical commentary, or artistic works that touch on religious topics without the specific malicious intent are protected.

9. Interaction with Section 196 BNS (Enmity Between Groups)

Provision	Focus
Section 299 BNS	Deliberate and malicious insult to religious feelings of any class
Section 196 BNS	Promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups
Section 302 BNS	Deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of a specific person
Section 197 BNS	Imputations that any group cannot bear allegiance to the Constitution

Sections 299 and 302 focus on outraging or wounding religious feelings. Sections 196 and 197 focus on promoting enmity between groups. All four provisions may apply to the same conduct in some cases (particularly communally inflammatory speech), and prosecutions often charge multiple provisions.

10. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

📖 Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620

Discussed above. Constitutional validity of Section 295A IPC with narrow interpretation.

📖 N. Veerabrahmam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 AP 572

The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a case involving the Ramayana. The Court held that Section 295A IPC applies only to deliberate and malicious insults, not to good-faith interpretations or artistic works. Rule: narrow interpretation of Section 295A.

📖 Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 5 SCC 11

The Supreme Court considered a case where a novel had faced accusations of hurting religious sentiments. The Court held that the state may forfeit copies of the book under specific statutory provisions, but this does not amount to criminalisation of the author. Rule: distinction between forfeiture and criminalisation.

📖 Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, (2017) 7 SCC 760

Discussed above. Section 298 IPC (now Section 302 BNS) requires specific intent to wound religious feelings.

📖 Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1

The Supreme Court considered Sections 153A and 295A IPC (now Sections 196 and 299 BNS). The Court held that specific mens rea and actual or likely disturbance of public tranquillity must be established. Rule: strict standards for religious offences.

📖 Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1

The Supreme Court considered the application of Sections 153A, 295A, and 298 IPC to television debates. The Court laid down guidelines for the interpretation of these provisions in modern media contexts. Rule: modern application of religious offence provisions.

📖 State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684

The Supreme Court considered a case of alleged inflammatory speech during communal tensions. The Court held that religious speech during periods of communal tension must be judged with particular care. Rule: contextual assessment of religious speech.

📖 Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633

The Supreme Court considered the framework for reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech in the interests of public order. The Court laid down the proximate connection test: the restriction must have a proximate and reasonable connection with public order, not a remote or fanciful one. Rule: proximate connection required.

📖 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1

The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act on the ground that it was vague and overbroad. The judgment provides important framework for the constitutional validity of speech restrictions, applicable also to Chapter XVI provisions.

📖 Common Cause v. Union of India, (2016) 15 SCC 269

The Supreme Court considered the framework for prosecuting hate speech and religious offences. The Court emphasised procedural safeguards and the need for careful judicial scrutiny. Rule: procedural safeguards.

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620. Constitutional validity of Section 295A.
N. Veerabrahmam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 AP 572. Narrow interpretation of Section 295A.
Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 5 SCC 11. Distinction between forfeiture and criminalisation.
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, (2017) 7 SCC 760. Specific intent required for Section 298 IPC.
Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1. Strict standards for religious offences.
Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1. Modern application in media contexts.
State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684. Contextual assessment during tensions.
Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633. Proximate connection test.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1. Framework for speech restrictions.
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2016) 15 SCC 269. Procedural safeguards for religious offences.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955. Framework applicable to religion offences.
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574. Freedom of speech in artistic contexts.
Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 372. Freedom of artistic expression.
Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 1. Obscenity and religious sentiments.
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431. Framework for religious speech offences.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Chapter XVI of the BNS?

Chapter XVI of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contains five provisions on offences relating to religion (Sections 298 to 302). Section 298 punishes injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion. Section 299 punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Section 300 punishes voluntary disturbance of religious assemblies. Section 301 punishes trespassing on burial places or funeral rites places. Section 302 punishes uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Punishments range from one year to three years.

What is Section 299 BNS?

Section 299 BNS (formerly Section 295A IPC) is the most significant provision of Chapter XVI. It punishes any person who, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by any means (words spoken or written, signs, visible representations, electronic means, or otherwise), insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class. Punishment: up to three years, or fine, or both. Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620, upheld the provision as constitutional with narrow interpretation.

What did Ramji Lal Modi v State of UP decide?

In Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620, the Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of Section 295A IPC (now Section 299 BNS). The Court upheld the provision as a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech under Article 19(2), on the ground of public order. The Court emphasised that Section 295A applies only to deliberate and malicious insults, not to good-faith criticism or artistic works. The Court read the provision narrowly to avoid conflict with Article 19(1)(a). This narrow interpretation continues to guide Section 299 BNS prosecutions.

What is the mens rea required for Section 299 BNS?

Section 299 requires deliberate and malicious intention. This is a strict mens rea requirement. Deliberate means purposefully done, not accidental. Malicious means with the specific intent to outrage religious feelings. This requirement is significant because it protects: (i) innocent artistic works that touch on religious topics; (ii) academic criticism of religious practices; (iii) satirical commentary; (iv) educational discussions; and (v) good-faith criticism. The provision applies only where the specific intent is to outrage religious feelings. Mahendra Singh Dhoni v Yerraguntla emphasises the same principle for Section 298 IPC (now Section 302 BNS).

What is Section 298 BNS?

Section 298 BNS (formerly Section 295 IPC) punishes destroying, damaging, or defiling any place of worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons with intent to insult the religion, or with knowledge that the class is likely to consider the destruction, damage, or defilement as an insult. Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both. The section protects places of worship of all religions (temples, mosques, churches, gurdwaras) and sacred objects (idols, sacred manuscripts, religious symbols). Common applications: damage during communal riots, defilement of religious spaces, destruction of religious icons.

How do Chapter XVI provisions interact with freedom of speech?

Chapter XVI provisions are reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech under Article 19(2), on the grounds of public order and morality. Their constitutional validity has been upheld (Ramji Lal Modi, 1957). However, the Kedar Nath Singh (1962) limiting principle applies: only speech with tendency to actually create public disorder or communal disturbance is covered. Mere academic criticism, satirical commentary, or artistic works that touch on religious topics without specific malicious intent are protected. Recent cases (Amish Devgan, 2021) elaborate the modern application in media contexts.

Offences Relating to Religion Chapter XVI BNS