Time seems to be appropriate to do a thread on Blasphemy laws so let’s start with the Calcutta Quran petition as it is the most famous example of the laws being used by Hindus even though there are other cases also .
Sujato Bhadra vs. State of West Bengal from 2005 and S Veerabadran Chettiar vs EV Ramaswami Naicker and Ors from 1958 are among the others .
Relevant Sections include Section 95 which allows governments to search and forfeit anything which is liable to hurt sentiments of the people .
Section 96 which allows for government actions taken under Section 95 to be questioned in Court .
Section 295 ( The most infamous of them all)
Section 153 A
Chandmal Chopra, Hamangshu Kumar Chakraborthy Sital Singh filed a petition at the Calcutta High Court praying for a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution on March 29, 1985, directing the State of West Bengal to declare each copy of the Quran, as forfeited
They contented that by refusing to make the declaration as sought by them In a letter dt. 16th March, 1985 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Home, The Government of West Bengal
had failed to discharge its statutory duty laid down in Section 95 of the Cr. P. C., 1973.
In support of their petition , portions of various parts of Koran included in surahs and ayats therein were quoted by them
The judgment was delivered by Justice Bimal Chandra Basak of the Calcutta High Court on 17 May 1985. He dismissed the petition .
He held that portions of the Koran had been quoted by the petitioners out of context and the same did not reflect any malicious or deliberate intention of outraging the religious feelings of non-Muslims. he noted that there were various interpretations of the different verses
The full judgment can be read here
indiankanoon.org/doc/1594975/
Not long after the Calcutta Quran Petition
the Hindu Raksha Dal In 1986 published a poster
titled ‘Why riots take place in the country?’ citing 24 ayāts, which figure in the petition as well,
The poster was in Hindi that reproduced the ayāts verbatim from an authentic edition of the Qur’ān, which provided the Arabic text along with its translation in Hindi and English,
The poster stated that these verses “command the believers (Musalmans) to fight against followers of other faiths,” and that “so long as these ayāts are not removed [from the Qur’ān], riots in the country cannot be prevented.”
The case against them also under the same sections was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi, Z S Lohat stating
