Religious Fanaticism

In one line

The law can void an election won by an appeal to religion, punish a speech that sets one community against another, and dismiss a State government that governs on religious lines; what it cannot do is change what anybody believes.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: "religious fanaticism" is the University's own printed wording in topic 8, and the constitutional answer to it has three limbs. First, election law: section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 makes it a corrupt practice to appeal for votes on the ground of a candidate's religion, and section 123(3A) to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between classes of citizens on grounds of religion, both upheld in Prabhoo as reasonable restrictions saved by article 19(2). Second, the criminal law, which punishes the promotion of enmity between groups. Third, secularism as a basic feature: on S.R. Bommai, "No political party can simultaneously be a religious party", and a State Government pursuing an unsecular course of action "renders itself amenable to action under Article 356". Each limb has a real limit, and stating those limits separates a good answer from a list.

MU's word, and why this chapter keeps it

The printed label is "Secularism and religious fanaticism". The second half is not a term of art and appears in no statute, so the chapter answers the question the University set rather than renaming it: what does the Constitution do about religion used as a weapon between communities? The label names a problem; it does not supply a legal test.

The provisions

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees to all citizens the right "to freedom of speech and expression". Article 19(2) permits any law imposing "reasonable restrictions ... in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."

Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, but expressly "Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part". Those opening words matter more here than anywhere else in the topic: a religious motive is not an answer to a public order law, which is how the anti-conversion statutes were upheld in Stainislaus, worked in [Religious Taxation and Religious Instruction].

In the criminal law, section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 punishes whoever, by words spoken or written or through electronic communication, "promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion ... 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 an act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity. The punishment is up to three years, and up to five in a place of worship. Section 197 punishes imputations prejudicial to national integration. Both are read from the Gazette text of the Sanhita held in this repository.