Bring all scriptures under Bill or drop life sentence: AG

GOVT HAD SOUGHT AG’S OPINION AFTER IPC AMENDMENT BILL, PASSED BY PUNJAB, WAS RETURNED BY CENTRE IN MARCH

CHANDIGARH: The Capt Amarinder Singh-led Congress government has been advised by its advocate general to go ahead with the proposed amendment to Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code to increase the jail term in cases of religious sacrilege.

Advocate general Atul Nanda has also suggested either dropping of the proposed insertion of a new section (295AA) that prescribes life imprisonment for sacrilege of Guru Granth Sahib or making it more inclusive to cover all religious scriptures to uphold the secular ethos ingrained in the Constitution.

The state government had sought the legal opinion of advocate general after the Indian Penal Code (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2016 was returned by the Centre in March this year, stating that amendment for one religion was not possible and it could fail judicial scrutiny. The bill proposed life imprisonment for sacrilege of Guru Granth Sahib (by adding Section 295-AA) and enhancement of punishment (under Section 295 of the IPC) from two to ten years for injuring or defiling a place of worship.

In his advice to the state government, the advocate general has concluded: “As far as proposed Section 295AA is concerned, such amendment may be dropped given that a sacred book such as the Guru Granth Sahib already stands covered under Section 295 or, alternatively, an amendment may be proposed (that) would include all/any religious books which would then be in consonance with the principles of secularism and would not be in violation with Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.

BILL PASSED UNDER BADAL REGIME

The amendment to Section 295 and insertion of the new section were proposed by the previous Parkash Singh Badal-led Akali government. The bill, which was passed by the Punjab assembly in March 2016, got the state governor’s assent in April 2016. It was then sent for the Centre’s nod.

To become a law, the bill required presidential assent, since it was in conflict with the central legislation (295-A) that prescribes three-year imprisonment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the feelings of any class by insulting its religion and religious beliefs.

The Centre had subsequently held no objection to amendment in Section 295 but refused to forward the bill in question for the assent of the President on the ground that the “proposed amendments would violate the principle of secularism enshrined in the Constitution, would prescribe a sentence which was excessive as the objective to be achieved by state government was already taken care of by the existing law.