IPC Section 153A - Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different groups and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Official Text
“(1) Whoever— (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different [...] groups or [...] and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, [...] shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (2) Offence committed in place of worship, etc.— Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”
Legal Analysis
Elements to Prove:
- The accused used words, signs, or representations.
- The act promoted (or attempted to promote) enmity, hatred, or ill-will.
- This was done between groups based on religion, race, language, etc.
- The act was done with malicious intent.
Potential Defenses:
- The most common defense is that the act is protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution) and was not done with any malicious intent.
- The accused may argue their statement was a fair comment, a historical analysis, or a political critique not aimed at creating hatred between communities.
Practical Examples
What Constitutes the Offense:
A person creates a series of social media posts with fake data and inflammatory images, claiming that people of a particular religion are conspiring to take over the country, with the clear intent to make other communities hate and fear them.
What Doesn't Constitute:
An academic writing a historical book that analyzes past conflicts between two communities. A political leader criticising a specific government policy, even if that policy is popular with a particular group. The key is the absence of malicious intent to promote hatred between the groups themselves.
Important Case Laws
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. Union of India (1971)
The Bombay High Court held that a crucial ingredient of this offense is the intention to promote feelings of enmity. The act must be done with a calculated and malicious intent.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995)
The Supreme Court ruled that casual or isolated slogans that do not result in any public disorder or create any hatred between communities do not amount to an offense under this section.
Punishment
Imprisonment up to 3 years, or Fine, or both. If committed in a place of worship, imprisonment up to 5 years and a Fine.
Related Information
Connected Sections:
This section is often charged with §295A (outraging religious feelings) and §505 (public mischief). It punishes the creation of a climate of hatred, which is seen as a root cause of public disorder. It's broader than §153, which focuses only on provoking an immediate riot.
Procedural Aspects:
Prosecution under this section requires prior sanction from the Central or State Government. The offense is triable by a Magistrate of the first class.