Exploring the complex tension between religious faith and legal systems, this article delves into cases where personal beliefs challenge established laws, raising ethical and societal debates.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
“With great power comes great responsibility.”
Late Friday night, three men took it upon themselves to deface two road sign boards on Humayun Road and Akbar Road in Lutyens’ Delhi. With black spray paint in hand, they kicked, spat on, and vandalized public property, all while filming their so-called act of protest. As an observer of the growing tension between faith and the rule of law, I find this deeply unsettling.
According to officials of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), these men raised slogans as they carried out their actions, completely disregarding the legal implications of their behavior. The incident, caught on video and widely shared online, is yet another example of how religious or ideological sentiments are increasingly being used as a justification for unlawful acts.
When Belief Trumps the Law
This raises a fundamental question: should religious intensity excuse blatant violations of the law? Humayun and Akbar were Mughal rulers—figures whose legacies remain contentious in India’s socio-political landscape. But let’s be honest—defacing road signs does nothing to change history. What it does, however, is reflect a dangerous mindset where faith and ideology become excuses to sidestep legal accountability.
From a legal standpoint, these acts are not just ethically questionable; they are criminal offenses. The perpetrators could be charged under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, which penalizes anyone who damages or defaces public property. They may also face charges under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to mischief causing damage over Rs. 50, and Section 295 of the IPC, which deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Yet, more often than not, those who commit such offenses believe they will get away with it. When religious sentiment is invoked, enforcement becomes murky, and punishment is often delayed or diluted. This emboldens others to take similar actions, knowing the consequences might be minimal or even nonexistent.
Is Religion Being Misused?
The growing trend of individuals taking the law into their own hands, often under the pretext of religious fervor, can be traced to a larger political narrative. The increasing assertion of a specific ideological vision—where the idea of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ gains traction—has led many to believe that they can act with impunity. This push for a theocratic state has, at times, escalated into violence and lawlessness, raising serious concerns about the country’s democratic and secular fabric. Over time, political figures, through their words and actions, have either tacitly endorsed or deliberately ignored instances where the boundary between faith and law has been blurred, challenging the very fabric of legal neutrality.
When the highest offices of power engage in symbolic religious acts, such as renaming cities based on historical-religious narratives, it can send a message—intended or not—that history must be rewritten to fit current ideological preferences. Some examples that come to mind are the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s spree of renaming places across the state, such as renaming Allahabad as Prayagraj and Faizabad as Ayodhya. Such a dangerous trend is not restricted to UP alone. In 2017, the Maharashtra state board revised history textbooks of classes 7 and 9 by removing almost all traces of Mughal rule, instead focusing on the Maratha empire founded by Shivaji. The same trend was seen in Rajasthan.
While cultural and religious expressions have their place in a diverse democracy, they should not come at the cost of undermining the rule of law. The challenge remains: when faith is invoked, legal enforcement becomes weak, and the judiciary is often placed in a difficult position. If unchecked, this trend risks normalizing unlawful behavior, making it easier for individuals to justify taking matters into their own hands.
Amid this, the idea of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ has become a rallying cry for some, a symbol of unity and cultural revival. But is this vision truly what it appears to be? Are we being misled, manipulated into believing that religion and politics must merge for the nation’s progress? Or is this just another tool to consolidate power, using faith as a shield for political motives?
Why are we so determined to erase history in the first place? History is the study of the past as it has unfolded and supported by findings of archeological evidence, devoid of additions and omissions. But in this quest to reshape history, are we also reshaping our future in a way that threatens the very foundations of democracy and justice?
The Bigger Picture: Law vs. Sentiment
Despite a law against the destruction of property, incidents of rioting, vandalism, and arson have been common during protests across the country.
The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 punishes anyone “who commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property” with a jail term of up to five years and a fine or both. Provisions of this law can be coupled with those under the Indian Penal Code.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Fines LawSikho Rs 1 Lakh, Dismisses Defamation Case Over X Tweets
Public property under this Act includes:
- Any building, installation, or other property used in connection with the production, distribution, or supply of water, light, power, or energy.
- Any oil installation, sewage works, mine, or factory.
- Any means of public transportation or telecommunications or any building or installation used in connection therewith.
However, the Supreme Court has on several earlier occasions found the law inadequate and has attempted to fill the gaps through guidelines.
What the Supreme Court Said
In 2007, the court took Suo motu cognizance of “various instances where there was large-scale destruction of public and private properties in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals, and the like,” and set up two committees headed by former apex court judge Justice K T Thomas and senior advocate Fali Nariman to suggest changes to the law.
In 2009, in the case of In Re: Destruction of Public & Private Properties v. State of AP and Ors, the Supreme Court issued guidelines based on the recommendations of these two expert Committees.
The Thomas Committee’s Recommendation:
- Recommended reversing the burden of proof against protesters. The court accepted this suggestion and ruled that if public property had been damaged in direct action called by an organization, the accused should be presumed guilty unless proven otherwise.
- The law must be amended to allow courts to draw a presumption that the accused is guilty of destroying public property, with the burden on the accused to prove their innocence.
ALSO READ: 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots | Ex-Congress MP Sajjan Kumar Gets Lifer: A Timeline Of Events
The Nariman Committee’s Recommendation:
- Recommended extracting damages for destruction. The court held that rioters would be strictly liable for the damage, and compensation would be collected to cover the losses.
- The court said: “Where persons, whether jointly or otherwise, are part of a protest which turns violent, results in damage to private or public property, the persons who have caused the damage, or were part of the protest or who have organized it will be deemed strictly liable.”
Apart from holding rioters liable and imposing costs, the court also issued guidelines directing High Courts to order suo motu action and set up investigative mechanisms wherever mass destruction to property takes place due to protests.
Impact of Guidelines
Like the law, these guidelines have had a limited impact. Identifying individual protesters remains difficult, especially in cases where there is no clear leader who called for the protest.
For instance, following the Patidar agitation in 2015, Hardik Patel was charged with sedition for inciting violence that led to loss of life and property. However, his lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that since there was no evidence that he had called for violence, he could not be held liable for the destruction of property.
In 2017, a petitioner who claimed he was forced to spend more than 12 hours on the road due to an ongoing agitation moved the Supreme Court seeking implementation of the 2009 guidelines. In its verdict in Koshy Jacob v. Union of India, the court reiterated that the law needed to be updated. However, it did not grant the petitioner any compensation since the organizers of the protest were not before the court.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court on China’s AI DeepSeek Ban: “Don’t Use It If It’s Harmful!”
No One is Above the Law
The law exists for a reason. If we allow religious or nationalist fervor to dictate which laws are followed and which are ignored, we set a dangerous precedent. The government and law enforcement agencies must ensure that such incidents do not go unchecked. Legal action must be swift, decisive, and consistent—without bias or leniency.
As a nation, we need to reaffirm the belief— that the sentiment no matter how deeply rooted—does not stand above the law. Because when it does, we are no longer governed by justice but ruled by anarchy. And that is a future none of us should want.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
