— Criticism in moderate language of the religious practices or customs of a religion or its tenets is not prohibited.

For example, it is not an offence to condemn the practice of untouchability and sati and to urge for their total abolition. It is not impermissible to criticise the practice of triple divorce amongst Muslims or the punishment of stoning a woman for adultery. It is not an offence to doubt the divinity of Christ or the authenticity of miracles in the Bible, nor is it an offence to characterise religion as the opium of the people and priests and pujaris as exploiters of people’s credulity and superstitions.

Undeniably, the feelings of Hindus, Muslims and Christians would be hurt by these statements. However, such criticism cannot be equated with hate speech and cannot be criminalised; otherwise debate and discussion would be impossible in a free democratic society and social reforms cannot be effectuated. The overriding principle is that criticism should be rational and expressed in moderate language and should not degenerate into reviling or abusing any religion or its founders. This is the legal position irrespective of the announcement of elections.

Before elections are announced, by the issuance of notifications required under the Representation of the People’s Act (RPA), neither the model code of conduct nor the RPA ‘s provisions are triggered.

Afterwards, however, Section 125 of the RPA makes it an electoral offence for any person to, in connection with the election, promote feelings of religious enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens. Further, under Section 123 of the RPA, the election of a candidate can be invalidated on the ground of corrupt practice, if a charge of appealing to religion in the course of his election is proved.

... contd.