In recent times, religion has been considered as the center for a hostile idea or target the individual for initiating communal violence in society. For the same reasons that all hate speech prosecutions are problematic, "religious" hate speech trials are polarizing. Conflicting views in the society exists regarding, the position of hate speech to harmonize with the public view in democracy.

After all, the prominent presence of our religious values or morals in the Indian society that connects personal identity of individual towards truth and right that gives the cultural position which gives deep-rooted connection to pre–notion beliefs and gives both a personal commitment to a set of allegations about truth and right practices. This added more complexity and layers to religious hate speech and its publication.

Inter-religious hate speech can be understood as individual views of citizens regarding religion, which are often expressed against people of a different religion. These views create personal abhorrence between the different communities. It is a common practice that has been expressed on the public platform. For better understanding and a better scope of research, I have defined inter-religion hate speech as "any written or printed speech/ remarks on religion, that expresses the writer/editor's disinclination towards any particular religious community."

This article highlights the following themes:

1. The historical context in which "freedom of speech and expression" was enacted or changed, along with the legal analysis of hate speech in India.
2. To observe laws passed in the colonial period and after independence by the Constituent Assembly, which eventually led to the formation of laws in today's context.
3. To understand the role of the court in limiting the "freedom of speech and expression" concerning an argumentative religious publication that amounts to offending societal norms.
4. To examine the role played by non-state actors in controlling the publishing of religious content.
5. Lastly, to understand global perspectives of countries, i.e. UK, USA and their ideas towards publishing religious content, which amounts to hate speech towards religion.

The Background Of Free Speech And Its Expression During Colonial India

Due to modernity in ideas and institutions have been brought to India by agents of European imperialism in particular by Britishers during their rule in India. This was in stark contrast to Europe's enlightenment and modernity effort, which had been established mostly or entirely through internal or indigenous processes. The monopoly and competence claim on modernity was exploited by colonial nations as justification for meeting their imperial objectives.

The colonial rule showed dichotomy on two levels. First and foremost, a freedom that was considered the holiest and universal virtue of the illumination project was reduced to another product of the same illumination project through colonialism and the formation of the subject. The idea was used as a tool to expand fundamental rights of speech in the west whereas, in contrast, deny the same rights to colonial people.

In the domain of "freedom of speech and expression", this conflict was particularly obvious. When individuals observe that, "freedom of speech and expression" plays a vital role in society, thereafter they had become opponents of colonial powers. British India has been a conflicting political structure for many.

A connection between dominance and subordination may be derived, as Guha contends, from the power dynamic in colonial India. By causing changes in the institutional systems, the British attempted to establish their hegemony. The adoption of the English education system was a vital part of the plan for forming an intellectual group of rationalists capable of ensuring that their work was conveyed with ideological legitimacy.

While the new intellectual elite remained mostly committed to the cause, liberal ideas about rights and freedom prompted a segment of the same group to question colonial authority in India. The press has evolved into a strong tool for exposing and criticizing the British government. These actions hampered attempts to establish legitimacy, implying that British rule relied heavily on force as the dominant form of the domain.

They retaliated by enacting a slew of legislation that curtails journalistic independence. This was the beginning of a trend of censorship rules enforced by the Britishers, who were simultaneously battling for the "freedoms of speech and expression" of aboriginal Indians at the time.

Over time, colonial power tries to become a neutral arbitrator on conflicting publications of religious interest, because that was the founding stone of speech and expression. This viewpoint is also represented in IPC section 295(A). Although numerous laws were drafted by the United Kingdom to govern and limit free expression, they utilized tracts and pamphlets very carefully in the community atmosphere to disgrace religious beliefs and religious symbols to escape the charge of favouring one of them over the other.

The other part shows how, in the 1870s, the strategy of 'competitive communalism' was so aggressive that censorship requirements from the Indian people began to increase, culminating in the creation of IPC Section 295(A), which many respond to as India's blasphemy statute.

The formation of this Section, which portrays "freedom of speech and expression" in India, would be a controversial topic, mainly when it comes to the point of publication of religious content. Hence, violence and hatred among these publications will amount to a misuse of the right to free expression. In this case, the leaders who had otherwise requested journalistic freedom to challenge the rulers, together with British legislators, defined the limitations on religious harm that such freedom would entail.

Interpreting Legal And Constitutional Definitions Of "Limits" On Religious Violations And "Freedom Of Speech & Expression"

After the independence, there was a feeling of elimination of every act of the British period and form a new state with new liberations which was led by nationalists in form of freedom with unwavering respect for civil liberties. However, building a nation in such isolation with great dramatic action was not practically feasible.

This inconsistency was observed in CAD and in the Indian Constitution that has been drafted. When the power to make laws for a plural country like India, the real task of defining a nation's destiny has started. Inclusion of right to "freedom of speech and expression" in the Indian constitution is considered a founding pillar of democracy. Moreover, there is no doubt about its importance in one of the biggest democracies across the world.

There was a missed chance to ponder properly on its relevance and its role in making India's democracy more dynamic. Rather, it drove constitution builders to severely restrict their scope by their necessity for national unity and public order.

Three significant aspects were represented in the arguments that followed:

1. Although essential, the notion of freedom was viewed as secondary to the social equality pledges and brotherhood requirements. Thus, although the fundamental rights of fundamental liberties were included, they were accompanied with caution, which provided scope for governmental interference.
2. There has been a constant struggle to equate individual rights with collective rights, but the ambiguity of government interference regarding "freedom of speech and expression" war is very high. Due to that these two different elements of society may collide against each other rights.
3. Though the assembly failed in agreeing to include "communal hate" as a condition for state involvement, the fact was not that it was recognized as a threat but that existing law, particularly under IPC, was sufficient to manage such situations.

These strands provided room for State interference in three ways:

1. Constitutional limitation that restricts the "right to freedom of speech and expression";
2. Contradiction between rights of individuals & groups that have the potential to create a threat to communal disharmony in the state;
3. Acceptance of criminal laws which, by the way, were brought & constituted during the colonial administration, as a disincentive to free speech abuses.

The Constitution confronted fresh contradictions soon after it was formulated and its modification resulted in it. However, it was again portrayed as a threat to state capacity and therefore strengthened state powers against such freedom rather than participating in a debate on the potential for freedom of expression. Different types of situations create various types of socio-cultural and political views about "freedom of speech and expression". There are many provisions in IPC, CrPC, and state statutes which limit "freedom of speech and expression" in British era & also create ambiguity that creates a wide area for interpretation.

There was also worry about the position of lawmakers and executives in respect of "freedom of speech and expression". It restricted, the scope for the above-mentioned right, both legally and substantively, by being juxtaposed to maintaining social peace. As the discussion in the two Houses revealed when the criminal codes were amended in 1961 and 1969, the legislators did not want to address freedom of expression and in situations of concern, because the atmosphere in which legislation was proposed did not draw much attention.

The range of community brutality & part played by print media in growing division persuaded legislators for restricting "freedom of speech and expression". The impact of modifications was, however, generally disregarded, as they not only affected the community press, but also other kinds of speech such as literature, etc. Increasing the executive's authority to implement such legislation also meant that "freedom of speech and expression" was more dependent on administrators' prerogatives.

On one side, the government was believed to be responsible for maintaining harmony in the community & maintain the social agreement. On the other hand, it is presumed government's responsibility to play a paternalistic role in instilling the principles of national integration & tolerance in Indian citizens.

Law, Courts, And "Reasonable" Limitations To Free Speech To Prevent Religious Offence

The term "offence" also implies that there are two parties involved: one offender (who offends) and the injured party (who takes offence). The offender might be a person or a thing (in the present case books and other publications). Also, an individual and a group may be insulted simultaneously (when many people in the same social group or community experience the offence).

Therefore, religious offence refers to the harm that is created by persons or groups' religious sensitivities invoked by disputed religious issues such as the defamation of religion or the promotion of hate based on religion. Therefore, religious offence refers to the harm that is created by persons or groups' religious sensitivities invoked by disputed religious issues such as the defamation of religion or the promotion of hate based on religion.

There is an extensive harmony that restrictions on free speech are appropriate if public order worries are present. Yet there is little concurrence on the methods of evaluating which speech act is a public order concern & thus need to be banned. While we are talking of the Indian case, the first amendment came to achieve harmony among "individual liberty" and "social freedom,".

Any public order was included as a permissible restriction of "freedom of speech and expression" in the Constitution. The meaning of "public order" has been modified by the Supreme Court in numerous judgments by drawing out its breadth and restrictions.

In the post-independence era, political speeches and the printing press regarded the contentious religious content to have a key role in inciting animosity and instilling violence between various communities, and so believed to be rules suitable. The worry was that the administration in power could utilize the danger to political order and so unfairly limit the freedom of expression and expression.

Conversely, there was also the dread of the authorities leading to a serious issue of public order even slight misjudges. It was thus expected that the Court would establish a link between "freedom of speech and expression" as a basic right for all people to freely enjoy and its misuse which constituted a threat to the "public order".

Role of the judiciary is essential in this respect for Pratap Bhanu Mehta. He contends that as legal grounds for the "keeping of public order" can control the fundamental freedom to express, the court can regulate any "inclusion" of religion. He added that this was allowed largely as the courts interpreted the exemption to the public order in Articles 19 and 25 in an overall manner to avoid additional questioning when the limitation is alleged to be linked to public order. The courts also presume that throughout the proceedings, as Mehta argues, every attempt at insulting religion must contribute to undermining government order.

While intriguing, this view of the function of the judiciary is unrestricted. It is important to know that the publisher and editor of Anand Patrika, prosecuted by the government for section 295(a) for publishing Prophet's cartoon and was acquitted by the High Court of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh because the state failed to provide sufficient proof to show that this activity is done in a 'deliberate' and 'malicious' manner.

In both cases, the disparity demonstrates the different attitudes of the court. Responses for the cartoon release were directly accountable for the rule of "law and order" in Uttar Pradesh. The release of the publication suggested a relationship between the accused's aims & the reaction of the members of those religious communities. They claimed that they had been "afraid" of the criminal prosecution. For Modi, it helped prove intentional and malevolent intentions to react to the circumstances surrounding the cartoon's publishing.

The same was not true of Amrit Patrika's editor or editor, who had constantly argued that it was a matter of ignorance and had publicly apologized. It can be concluded by the Honorable Court that the government only could act based on its evaluation of public order issues not obligatorily including the 'clear and current risk test'. Further, the court held that the government has to prove the presence of deliberate and malicious intentions when prosecuting persons under criminal law.

The analysis above points to two significant features of the Court's view on the criminalization of speech actions that incorporate an objectionable religious theme. First, the courts allow action in cases where the form of insult is intensified, assuming that these statements have every opportunity to raise a question of "public order". On the same page, it was not clear what could be considered an aggravating type of insult or how the insults of a general nature that could not be penalized could be distinguished from them.

The Impact Of Non-State Actors On The Suppression Of Free Speech And Legal Position

The role of the judiciary as the defender of people's civil and basic rights. "Freedom of speech and expression" allows the constitution to cover the legal terminology and constitutional interpretations of this important right.

Usually, the court's decisions are in favour of the "freedom of speech and expression", the court defines it with public order and the values which they believed were important to the Indian society which resulted in the formation of a public context that is hostile to free expression. In the guise either of the protection of religious rights or the danger of annoyance created by public displays of harmed feelings, the Government seems to give in under such pressure.

The main concern of India's free speech scholars was the participation of non-state actors. Non-Status players, in particular socio-religious organizations, are pressing the government to intervene against publishing, using both legal and extra-legal measures. This involves mobilizing and protesting against a text, the author, or the publishing house, burning a book publicly, or physically attacking the book. The lawsuit comprises the submission of written requests against or against the author or publishing house.

The study of Independence Censorship also reveals the same scenario, in which claims of hurt emotions were not only used to pressurize the government to abolish the controversial publications and also view them as a legitimate and democratic way of the participation of the government.

It is acceptable for the judiciary to release their complaints on the issue of non-state actors by legally taking actions when interpreting the court legislation, in section 95 of the CrPC, on the government authority to ban or file the controversial publications. The courts required that the government authorities give the information regarding the groups or populations, why they are offended, and how the officials have arrived at the local judgment that forfeiting the publishing was essential for the notice which was issued for the seizure of such kind of publications.

The form of the complaint or demonstrations and rallies organized by socio-religious organizations are regarded as adequate grounds for an official's judgment against a disputed publication procedure to bring the attention of state authorities to their grievances. Consequently, it may be claimed that these kinds of intervention are considered necessary by the Court to provide authorities with a conclusive judgment on the need for action in one particular case or not.

Although players from outside the state have a major influence, it is the courts that decide ultimately on censorship. Even after the government resisters a written complaint and decides not to act against the publication, the author/publisher, or any other party, they may take legal actions against the government under section 96 of the CrPC, and the judiciary may decide legally and the validity of the government's action.

In such circumstances, the State Authority's primary responsibility is to act sensibly, analyzing the situation in light of the idea of proportionality, as articulated in various legal judgments. So that the declaration regarding the objections increased on socio-religious groups the Court also established an advantageous proceeding to be taken by the state authorities, during any kind of issue while publishing.

The approach of the court is indicated by three points of the recommended guidelines. A) "The presumption of freedom of expression, provided for in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, must exist, unless otherwise determined by a court of law to be within the scope of the reasonable limitation laid out in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. B)

This presupposition must be borne in mind whenever publications, art, theatre, movies, songs, poems, cartoons, or other creative expressions are complained of." C) "The obligation of the State to preserve law and order would not enable artists to retreat from their position and it will not allow non-State players to establish what is and what is not acceptable." "If such artists are attacked by a segment, the State needs to protect the police effectively."

The Court made it plain that non-state actors cannot establish constitutional rights limits, such as basic rights of expression and speech, and the courts alone are the authorities responsible for deciding on the "reasonable constraints" as outlined in the Constitution. The Court's position on these groups' use of violence or threats of rattling the public order is pitiless.

The courts also have determined that an artist's or author's freedom of expression cannot be hurt just for the sake of public order, but the responsibility of the State is to maintain the public order and must act aggressively with groups that risk public peace. By considering all the points, it is obvious that in terms of form and substance two types of involvement by non-state entities, legal and extra-legal. It also has various effects on the legal area established for "freedom of expression and speech".

The court may interfere in the earlier type of intervention and find that the state authorities are reasonable in their conduct. The following interference is not only illegal, but in this case, non-state actors will interfere to determine if a speech is allowed or not. The distinction also aids in responding to censorship accusations that non-state actors are harassed by the author/publisher as a result of the existence of legislative regulations restricting freedom of expression and demands that all such laws be repealed. These assertions are founded primarily on the premise that laws are a "slippery slope."

Like, on contrary: if the statutory laws are removed, it is then assumed that it will end all the abilities attached to censorship due to the interference. It is only the judiciary that can assess these issues, and the disregard of the law would restrict the powers of the courts to interfere.

In addition, the deletion of statutory laws would further enhance State officials' arbitrary roles. These officers may, in their foresight, use other laws available and forbid publications or arrest authors/publishers at their will, only under the form of averting public order concerns. After all, freedom of speech legislation does not release government officials of their responsibilities to interfere in situations like this.

Unlike the aforementioned theories, removing legislative limits may be counterproductive, increasing the risks to and unrestricted exercise of freedom of expression and speech. However, a notable exception is laws such as the customs Act, utilized by the government for the prohibition to import publications such as the Satanic verse, since the nature of those laws exceeds the jurisdiction of the judiciary for these prohibitions Cases like the Satanic Verses can be prohibited when non-state actors can exert pressure on the government, and even the judiciary cannot preserve these publications. Although this exemption is noteworthy and presumably demands revised thinking by politicians, it is not a solution for non-state entities to remove all statutory laws.

Comparison: Law Of Publication Of Religious Content In Two Countries ( Uk & USA)

• USA's Stance

  Whatever the result of the US Supreme Court is ruling in R.a.v.v. St F. Minnesota, the increasing cases of events influenced by racial and et animus requiring a reaction. As removing such hatred and loss is a goal accepted by the civil rights supporters, the question arising whether the First Amendment's free speech guarantees assistance and delay such remedies is still being discussed by the US Supreme Court.
  
  The United States Supreme Court affirmed the validity of an Illinois criminal legislation prohibiting the libel of a class of persons in Beauharnais v. Illinois, which was decided in 1952. Libellous, offensive or combative remarks are not protected speech, according to the Court. While the decision has never been formally overturned, later Supreme Court rulings granting broader protection to libellous expression may call into question the decision's present validity. The notion of collective libel has also been rejected by certain lower courts.
  
  The Supreme Court decided at Brandenburg v/s Ohio, after few years of Chaplinsky, that the only speech "governed at encouraging or developing imminent illegal actions" and "probability to encourage or develop such actions" may be forbidden. Many states that when hate speech is managed at a particular individual, then it is more acceptable to result in immediate illegal situations.
  
  Even some parties believe that speech limits should be implemented unrightfully in case of less number of speakers as compared to the protection from hate speech, after "the truth of quality as well as free speech" in risk with any speech limitations.
  
  Anti-hate speech critics believe that rather than suppressing racist speech, the most effective method to counteract racism is to reveal its wickedness via discussion and debate. A greater amount of speech is more effective than a lesser amount of communication. Racism will be driven underground by censorship, making it more difficult to eliminate.
  
  Hate speech proponents argue that rather than inviting a response or engaging in discussion, hate speech is meant to silence or frighten the targets of such speech. They cite social science theories on the roots of bias and effective ways to combat it, saying that understanding what is and is not socially acceptable may influence desired behaviour. Controlling the behaviours, they believe, will eventually regulate the unfavourable sentiments that underpin the acts.
   

• UK's Stance

  In the UK, a proceeding of attempts to make a strong law in work the hopes of lessening the circulation of bais issues and the working of bais groups have failed badly. discussing the right to free speech has obstructed with no doubts the implementation. Although, the freedom of expression is not an unreserved human right, it gives was to the other rights, such as the right not to be defamed. How much more important is it to protect traditional minorities from censure that neglects their humanity? This kind of right is reversed in international human rights law.
  
  The UK is required to legislate against bias incitement under Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Compliance with these duties necessitates not only the existence of laws but also their effective implementation. Indeed, it appears that compliance necessitates broadening the law's reach as well as its effectiveness: for example, prohibiting incitement to religious hate across the UK, which is presently illegal solely in Northern Ireland.
  
  This kind of right is made in international human rights law. Under Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination and Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UK is compelled to law against bias rousing. The laws that are present must be efficient in execution and are requires to fulfil these duties.

Observation And Conclusion
Law and legal proceedings are vitally important for defining the scale of "freedom of speech and expression" in India (that includes the role played by the courts), as this is prominently seen in other democracies. Most of the legislation that restricts freedom of expression and speech is colonial, but legislators and tribunals have continually emphasized its pertinence in contemporary India.

In the Constituent Assembly & the parliamentary debate when amending statutory legislation were proposed, the legislators were paternalistic. The attitude was reflecting. To successfully limit this right, they were reacting to the emerging scenario by expanding their sphere of interference in freedom of speech and expression issues. They were worried that citizens would be protected from abuse of free speech.

To fulfil this objective, the legislators produced a law, that was vague in wording and unclear in scope, to respond effectively to the situation which required such laws. The courts were held to blame and to be lauded as the sentinel of basic rights for the protection of fundamental rights for citizens.

An examination of the judgements of the Court, however, especially in instances involving allegations of a religious offence, reflects a feeling of legal paternalism to guide people about the form, manner and speech and suggests how to express yourself harmlessly. On the same hand, it appears that by defining its scope extensively, in particular, to maintain public order and to preserve the pluralistic and lay principles of Indian society, it extends the legal framework to governmental action.

Finding barriers to the absolute exercise of one's right of "freedom of speech and expression", the procedural &functional restrictions of the legal process which mainly involve the delay in reaching conclusions or a high degree of subjective incompatibility in using different tests and doctrines for interpreting laws. The paternalistic behaviour of legislators and the court and the legal process' problems provide the conditions in which not just are encouraged but also significantly successful in imposing restrictions/censorship on publications claimed to be religious offensive, the roles of non-state actors, such as social and religious groups.

In this procedure reasonability of limitations is not very well defined and is still susceptible to subjective interpretations as needed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which regulates basic freedom of speech and expression. In independent India, this constitutes the most severe danger to free speech and expression.

Bibliography

• Acharya, Bhairav. "Free Speech in India: Still Plagued by Pre-modern Laws." Media Asia 42, no. 3-4 (2015): 157-160.
• Ahmed, Asad Ali, "Spectre of Macaulay: Blasphemy, The Indian Penal Code, and Pakistan's Postcolonial Predicament." In Censorship in South Asia: Cultural Regulation from Sedition to Seduction, edited by Raminder Kaur and William Mazzarella, 172-205.
• Waldron, Jeremy. Liberal Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• Sridharan, Eswaran and Anthony Cerulli. "Editor's Introduction to the Roundtable on Intellectual Freedom, Vigilantism, and Censorship in India." India Review 13, no. 3 (2014): 274-276.
• Kumar N. Constitutional Law of India (Allahabad Law Agency 2009) 102.
• Barrier, N.G. Banned: Controversial Literature and Political Control in British India, 1907-47. Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 1974.
• Chandra, Bipan. "Communalism and the State: Some Issues in India." Social Scientist 18, no. 6-7 (1990): 38-47.

Written By: Anshika Jain, BA LLB, (H)- X Sem - Amity University, Madhya Pradesh