This article is written by Ms. GULFASHA BANU WAHID KHAN, a Second year BA.LLB Student from HVPS COLLEGE OF LAW.
INTRODUCTION:
The 2022 Muhammad remarks row began on 27 May 2022, when Nupur Sharma, a spokeswoman of India’s ruling party, Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), made controversial remarks about the Islamic prophet Muhammad, on a Times Now debate on the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute, against the counterparty called the disputed Shivalinga as Fountain. The comments were in reference to Muhammad and age of his third wife, Aisha, at the time of their marriage and the consummation of the marriage. The controversy escalated on 1 June, when Naveen Kumar Jindal, the Delhi BJP media chief, made similar remarks on Twitter. By 4 June, the remarks had been widely shared on social media, and were trending among the top 10 hashtags in all the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Turkey.
The comments were strongly condemned by Muslim nations. Within India, dozens of police cases were filed against Sharma and Jindal. In some parts of the country, protests turned violent, leading to several deaths and injuries. The violence in Uttar Pradesh led to the punitive demolition of homes of some accused rioters.
Age of Marriage in Ancient Hindu Society
If we look for references for the suggested age of marriage in ancient Hindu society, we find in Manu smriti, a prominent Dharma sastra of Hinduism, a dictate in Chapter 9 verse 94:
” A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.”
This signifies that the prevalent social norms in the early society made it permissible for a man to take a wife at a fairly young age as the wife and what seems unacceptable in this day and age was accepted as valid at a point of time in history.
SHARMA’S REMARKS AFFECTING INDIA’S TIES WITH GULF NATIONS
The United Arab Emirates, Oman, Indonesia, Iraq, the Maldives, Jordan, Libya and Bahrain have joined the growing list of countries in the Islamic world that have condemned the remarks. Earlier, Kuwait, Iran and Qatar had called Indian ambassadors to register their protest, and Saudi Arabia had issued a strongly-worded statement.
A news channel in Iran reported what Tehran called an “insult against the Prophet of Islam in an Indian TV show”. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), based in the Saudi city of Jeddah, also condemned the remarks.
Amid the growing condemnation, the BJP issued a clarification saying it respects all religions and then suspended both the leaders pending an inquiry. The Indian Embassy in Qatar issued a statement calling those making the remarks against Prophet Muhammad ‘fringe elements’.
CHARGES AGAINST NUPUR SHARMA
Nupur Sharma has been charged under IPC (Indian Penal Code) sections 153A, 153 B, 295A, 298 and 505. The sections can be precisely summed up as ‘promoting enmity, outraging religious feelings’, ‘uttering words with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person’, ‘deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of a class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs’, and other offences.
LAW FOR INSULTING RELIGION:
SECTION 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.—Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class,
“shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.”
Section 295A is a cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence Legal experts consider Section 295A a controversial provision. They believe that there are good legal arguments for the court to revisit and consider overruling the constitution bench judgement in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP
Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was enacted in 1927
REFERENCE:
https://www.legalbites.in/prophet-remark-row/
Aishwarya Says:
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening