5 min readApr 21, 2026 05:08 PM IST First published on: Apr 21, 2026 at 05:08 PM ISTThere was widespread objection to Shashi Tharoor’s warning about India becoming a “Hindu Pakistan” if the BJP returns to power in 2019. But with each passing day, we are moving closer to Pakistan on one issue — blasphemy. This is deeply frustrating for those who teach criminal law, like this writer.Blasphemy has been abolished by 94 per cent of countries. Only some Muslim countries continue to have it. Why should India follow in their regressive steps? This author had strongly argued before a joint parliamentary committee against the inclusion of the blasphemy law in Section 299 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, but the government preferred to retain this relic of the colonial era.AdvertisementReligious beliefs should not be enforced as societal norms by the state, as that places an unnecessary burden on the right to free speech of citizens. In Punjab, the AAP government is doing politics through a new law. A special assembly session was convened on April 13 to pass a stringent anti-sacrilege law on the desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib. The new provision goes beyond Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, which provides that “whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.” Unlike the Pakistani law, Punjab’s new law provides for a Rs 25 lakh fine and has removed the defence of insanity or unsoundness of mind, which has been on our statute books since 1860.Recently, Justice Saurabh Srivastava of the Allahabad High Court observed that any assertion that a particular religion is the “only true religion” implies “disparagement” of other faiths and is covered by the blasphemy provision under the BNS, 2023 (Section 295-A of IPC). Fortunately, on April 10, the Supreme Court stayed criminal proceedings against Rev. Father Vineet Vincent Pereira, who had been accused of hurting religious sentiments during prayer meetings. As a matter of fact, the Preamble of our Constitution guarantees to every citizen “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship”. One is, therefore, entitled to the belief that his religion is the best and can express the same. This freedom of speech cannot be curtailed under Article 19(2) as blasphemy is not included as a ground on which there can be reasonable restrictions.Also Read | Manpreet Badal writes: Anti-sacrilege law ignores the lesson Punjab never learntIn ancient Greece, the crime of blasphemy included speaking ill of the gods, disturbing the peace, and dishonouring the principles of government. The arrival of monotheism gave a new impetus to blasphemy. The origin of the Western understanding of blasphemy lies in the 13th century, where it evolved as a crime separate from heresy. Almost immediately, challenges to the supremacy of God were considered as damaging the secular authority of the state. At its very inception, in the Biblical world, the state was the major stakeholder in blasphemy’s evolution as an offence punishable by law. In passing sentence upon John Taylor in 1671, English Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale argued that attacks upon religion were attacks upon the law itself and thus blasphemy was treated as treason. In subsequent centuries, the crime of “heresy” in Western countries converted European society into a “persecuting society”. One hopes Punjab won’t go that way.AdvertisementIn 1528, an individual in Paris was burned for denying the power of the Virgin. In 1662, a boatman in Sweden had his tongue mutilated for cursing the Holy Communion whilst in a drunken stupor. Similarly, in 1699, two young members of the Swedish Royal Navy were executed for having substituted the words “I have the devil in my heart” for “I have Jesus in my heart” whilst singing hymns. The last person sent to jail for blasphemy in the United States was in 1838. The US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson (1952) declared blasphemy as unconstitutional, holding that it is not the government’s business to suppress real or imagined attacks upon religions.you may likeWhy does the AAP government not understand that it has to concentrate on more pressing issues of governance rather than the desecration of a religious book? Under the new law, mere accusations will be enough to bring on threats to those accused and judges will not even be able to grant bail due to public protests and threat to the life of the accused At a time when so many people have been killed on mere allegations of possessing beef, stealing cows, child abduction, rape, theft etc. by the mob, Punjab’s law will give new impetus to mobocracy and lynching in India.The writer is Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna. Views are personal