The Kerala High Court has emphasized the necessity of mandatory imprisonment for individuals who promote enmity between different religious groups, stating that fines alone are insufficient to deter such offenses. This observation was made during the anticipatory bail hearing of former MLA PC George, who faces allegations of delivering hate speech against the Muslim community during a television debate.
Read Also:- Karnataka Waqf Board Advocates for Flexible Muslim Marriage Registration, Cites Absence of Governing Law
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan highlighted that India, as a secular nation, must enforce stricter punishments for actions that incite religious discord. He pointed out that under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 address offenses related to promoting enmity and deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings. These sections currently prescribe a punishment of up to three years imprisonment, a fine, or both. However, the Court expressed concern that the option of imposing only a fine allows repeat offenders to evade imprisonment.
"First offender he can escape with fine, second offender he can escape with fine... According to me, mandatory jail sentence is necessary, especially since India is a secular country," Justice Kunhikrishnan remarked.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Enforces Inclusive Policies and Medical Curriculum Reforms for LGBTQIA+ Community
Senior Counsel P. Vijayabhanu, representing PC George, argued that his client did not intentionally make statements promoting hatred against the Muslim community and that any such remarks were made under provocation during the debate, for which George has apologized.
The prosecution countered by highlighting that PC George had previously made similar provocative statements without provocation, indicating a pattern of behavior aimed at inciting disharmony. They emphasized that such statements, even if not immediately causing unrest, could foster long-term enmity and disrupt public tranquility.
The Court also noted PC George's repeated disregard for prior judicial orders. Despite being granted bail on the condition that he abstain from making provocative statements, he allegedly continued to do so, undermining the authority of the judiciary.
After considering the arguments, the Court has reserved its decision on the anticipatory bail application.
