Ramji Lal Modi Case

In Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), the Supreme Court upheld Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code as a constitutionally permissible restriction on freedom of speech. It held that the provision was protected by the public order ground in Article 19(2).

Constitutional ground

The Court held that Section 295A imposed a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and was therefore saved by Article 19(2). Public order had been added as a ground of restriction by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court emphasized that Article 19(2) permits laws made "in the interests of" public order, a phrase wider than laws confined to the direct maintenance of public order.

• Section 295A does not punish every criticism or insult concerning religion; it targets aggravated forms of insult committed with a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings.
• The Court considered such intentional acts to have a calculated tendency to disrupt public order, creating a sufficient connection between the offence and the constitutional ground.
• Thus, the provision was upheld not merely for protecting religious feelings, but because Parliament could reasonably prevent speech likely to threaten public order.

Significance for free speech

The judgment established that religiously offensive expression may be restricted only within a constitutionally recognized ground under Article 19(2). Its interpretation also makes the statutory requirement of deliberate and malicious intention central to distinguishing punishable conduct from ordinary criticism or inadvertent offence.