Comedians should be at liberty to make people cringe or laugh, but Section 295A of the IPC is a problem

How can you define the “hurting of religious sentiments” or, to quote Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, “Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage the 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”. As comedians like Kunal Kamra and Munawar Farooqui are discovering right now, this is a very wide-ranging interpretation. After all, how do you define “religion”; can someone claim any belief as a religion and file a First Information Report (FIR) in the case or have someone arrested on the basis of a statement that is quite open to interpretation? Even though courts have in the past said that academic and pertinent criticism of religion is allowed, it appears that Indians, particularly in an age of widespread social media, are particularly prickly. And of course there is “whataboutery”, and while it appears that comics are under strife because of a few statements made against Hindu gods right now, they have apologised abjectly for insulting other religions before.

Similarly, in the case of Kunal Kamra, who believes that there is a growing culture of intolerance in the country, the honourable judges of the Supreme Court could have, perhaps, suppressed a good-humoured, self-effacing chuckle rather than seemingly go all out against people with a funny bone. As the comedian himself pointed out, even though he desisted from offering a clear apology to the apex court, “I do not believe that any high authority, including judges, would find themselves unable to discharge their duties only on account of being the subject of satire or comedy”. He was again correct in pointing towards the superiority of the Supreme Court over any single individual by saying that “my tweets can shake the foundations of the most powerful court of the world is an overestimation of my abilities”. Honestly, Section 295A is a travesty in a modern and scientific age. We should all be able to criticise and question religion and the actions of a divine being; shouldn’t the theologians be allowed to question their gods? Shouldn’t followers be allowed to question the doubtable tenets of their religion? After all, what sort of society are we building if we cannot question things? Section 295A should be removed and while egregious insults to gods could still be outlawed — maybe under the clauses pertaining to defamation— comedians, movies and, yes, even newspaper opinion articles should be allowed to question gods. We agree that there should be extreme secularism in that questioning, and every religion must be questioned. Besides, all of us should also grow a thicker skin.