Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. 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 otherwise] insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, sh The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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 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.]
Section 295A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 299 Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 9
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 95 Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for the same
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 108 Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 95 Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for the same
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 108 Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters
- Criminal Law Amendment Act s. 10 Power of State Government to make certain offences cognizable and non-bailable
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 95 Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue searchwarrants for the same
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 108 Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditiousmatters
- Crpc 1973 s. 95 Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for the same
- Crpc 1973 s. 108 Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-27.pdf 2017-04-20 DATE VERIFIED (not same-date ROP order-29). TP(Crl) 23/2016. Dipak Misra/Khanwilkar/Shantanagoudar. s.295A covers only aggravated insults with deliberate/malicious intention to outrage religious feelings (Ramji Lal Modi); an unwitting/careless insult is not enough. Magazine caption 'God of Big Deals' does not satisfy the ingredients; complaint quashed; co-accused gets parity. Do not remap crpc 482 (already filled).
On this section: s.295A covers only aggravated insults with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings (Ramji Lal Modi). A careless magazine caption is not enough (Dhoni).
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer criminal proceedings from one Special Court to another Special Court under the same High Court jurisdiction to achieve complete justice and remedy procedural defects, provided such transfer does not violate mandatory substantive provisions of law. In cases involving crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution and where procedural defects have prevented a unified trial of accused persons charged with criminal conspiracy in the course of the same transaction, the Supreme Court can exercise this power to consolidate fragmented proceedings and ensure that all accused are tried together for the conspiracy charge, even if some had been previously discharged from separate proceedings. The absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant statutory provision (Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code) distinguishes this case from situations where such a clause exists, and therefore the transfer does not violate the fundamental right to appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On this section: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings - Applied to charges.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings - applied to the demolition and related acts
-
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs U. O. I.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where statutory provisions provide comprehensive remedies for addressing hate speeches, and the existing legal regime is sufficiently developed to address the menace through enforcement by law enforcing agencies and executive bodies, courts should not issue new judicial directions that go beyond their separation of powers authority or create judicially unmanageable orders. Instead, courts should emphasize effective execution of existing law and request appropriate bodies like the Law Commission to undertake legislative study and make recommendations for strengthening the legal framework. Judicial activism, while legitimate for addressing legal vacuums or preventing fraud upon statutes, must yield to separation of powers principles and the primacy of legislative action when the legislature has already expressed its will through comprehensive statutory schemes.
On this section: Offences related to religion; provides punishment up to 3 years for speech, writings or signs deliberately and maliciously insulting religion or religious beliefs of any class; constitutional validity upheld in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620
-
Arun Pathak vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail primarily on the ground of apprehension of imminent arrest and custodial interrogation, and the State, through its counsel, explicitly informs the Supreme Court that it does not require custodial interrogation of the petitioner and that statutory notice under Section 41A CrPC has been served, the Special Leave Petition becomes infructuous and stands disposed of without adjudication on the substantive merits of bail, as the fundamental cause for the petition—the threat of arrest—ceases to exist.
On this section: Allegations of deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… of law, and violate fundamental rights of the petitioner and freedom of press, causing a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression. - The FIRs are meant to harass and intimidate the petitioner; no part of 'cause of action' has arisen in the areas where the FIRs were lodged. - On interpretation of Sections 153A, 295A, and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'Penal Code') and Section 66-F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, (in short, the 'IT Act'), no offence whatsoever can be made out; the allegations are based upon utterances in isolation by picking up select words and not on the programme as a whole; the …
Questions about Section 295A
What have the courts held on Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code?
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (20 Apr 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.295A covers only aggravated insults with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings (Ramji Lal Modi). A careless magazine caption is not enough (Dhoni). Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 295A, section 295A IPC, section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 295a in bns and ipc 295a punishment in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (20 Apr 2017).
What should I read with Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
9 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 299 (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 295A, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.