Question 1

Is BNS 299 harder on social media users?

Accepted Answer

The law makes it clearer that digital content is on par with written words. The deliberate and malicious intent standard remains required.

Question 2

Does BNS 299 affect academic or artistic freedom?

Accepted Answer

Like IPC 295A, BNS 299 requires malicious intent. Sincere academic research or artistic expression should theoretically be protected.

Question 3

What is the 'deliberate and malicious' requirement in Section 295A/BNS 299?

Accepted Answer

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957) held that Section 295A requires both deliberate intent AND malicious motivation. A sincere academic study that some find offensive does not attract Section 295A. The act must be calculated to outrage religious feelings — a targeted deliberate insult, not accidental offence.

Question 4

Can a filmmaker be charged under Section 295A for a controversial film?

Accepted Answer

Potentially yes — several FIRs have been filed. Courts generally protect works with genuine artistic intent. The test is whether the film's primary purpose was to maliciously outrage religious feelings or whether it was genuine creative work. Many Section 295A FIRs against films are quashed by High Courts.

Question 5

How does Section 295A relate to free speech under Article 19(1)(a)?

Accepted Answer

Ramji Lal Modi (1957) upheld Section 295A as a reasonable restriction — it targets only deliberate and malicious religious insults, not honest criticism. Courts require proof of actual tendency to disturb public order, not merely theoretical possibility.

Outraging Religious Feelings: IPC 295A vs BNS 299 — Digital Media Added

Legal Commentary

Explanation

Related Topics

Quick Actions

Historical Context