Which of the following best describes the legal distinction between Section 298 and Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

Section 298 focuses on conduct-based desecration of places of worship, while Section 299 addresses expressive insults to religious beliefs.

Section 298 deals with electronic communication while Section 299 deals with physical vandalism.

Section 298 is a colonial-era provision while Section 299 is a post-independence amendment.

Section 298 mandates life imprisonment for all religious insults, while Section 299 mandates fines only.

In the case of Ramji Lal Modi vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the blasphemy provision on which of the following grounds?

Public order exception to free speech

Protection of religious minorities

Maintenance of national integrity

Prevention of communal violence

Daily

250 words

7/10
Rating

19 August 2026

Legal issues surrounding sacrilege laws

The topic involves a critical analysis of the constitutionality of sacrilege laws, the evolution of blasphemy legislation (Section 299 BNS/295A IPC), and the judicial interpretation of the public order exception under Article 19(2).

Notes

Punjab's Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act criminalises sacrilege against the Guru Granth Sahib with penalties up to life imprisonment.
The Act defines sacrilege to include both physical desecration and expressive acts like speech, writing, or electronic communication that hurt religious feelings.
Indian law distinguishes between sacrilege (conduct-based, e.g., Section 298 BNS/295 IPC) and blasphemy (expression-based, e.g., Section 299 BNS/295A IPC).
Section 295A IPC (now Section 299 BNS) was enacted in 1927 following the Rangila Rasul case and the subsequent murder of the publisher.
The Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Modi vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1957) upheld the constitutionality of Section 295A under the 'public order' exception of Article 19(2).
The 'deliberate and malicious' threshold in Section 299 BNS aims to protect bona fide criticism and social reform, though its application remains subjective.
The United Kingdom (England, Wales, and Scotland) has abolished common law offences of blasphemy as of 2024.

Part of a longer story

This is day 3 of 4 in Akal Takht objections to Punjab anti-sacrilege legislation, which has been running since 30 June 2026. Reading it whole is usually worth more than reading today alone — the exam asks how something developed.

Questions

Distinguish between the legal concepts of sacrilege and blasphemy in the Indian context. How does the expansion of state-level legislation regarding religious insult challenge the constitutional guarantee of free speech? 150 words

Attempt this — 150 words in 8 min

0 / 150 words 8:00
The colonial-era provision of Section 295A of the IPC, now incorporated into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, was intended to maintain public order. Critically examine the evolution of this law and its implications for the 'basic structure' of secularism in India, especially in light of the 'public order' exception under Article 19(2). 250 words

Attempt this — 250 words in 11 min

0 / 250 words 11:00

Prelims

Which of the following best describes the legal distinction between Section 298 and Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

In the case of Ramji Lal Modi vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the blasphemy provision on which of the following grounds?

Syllabus

Topics

Sources

A secular republic’s sacrilege problem: the legal price of criticising holy writ in India

250words.in · https://250words.in/daily/2026-08-19/legal-issues-surrounding-sacrilege-laws