Polity/Society · 20 Aug 2026

Section 295A BNS sacrilege law

Consider the following statements regarding religious offence law in India:

  1. Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deals with deliberate and malicious insult to religious belief through words or representation, while Section 299 deals with physical desecration of a place of worship.
  2. The predecessor of BNS Section 299, i.e., IPC Section 295A, was enacted in 1927 following the Rangila Rasul controversy.
  3. In Ramji Lal Modi vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), the Supreme Court upheld Section 295A under the "public order" exception provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
A1 only
B2 and 3 only
C1 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3
This question is based on: When "Public Order" Becomes a Permanent Alibi for Policing Belief
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 20 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

Punjab's 2026 amendment to the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar Act extended "sacrilege" to cover spoken, written or electronic expression seen as hurting religious feelings, reviving the century-old blasphemy-versus-sacrilege debate under India's colonial-origin religious offence law.

Why for UPSC

UPSC frequently tests the precise scope and constitutional basis of specific penal provisions rather than just their existence, especially where two adjacent sections are easily confused - exactly the distinction Punjab's new law puts back in focus.

Prelims summary

BNS Section 298 = physical desecration of a place of worship; BNS Section 299 (ex-IPC 295A, 1927, post-Rangila Rasul) = malicious insult to religious belief via words/signs; upheld in Ramji Lal Modi (1957) under Article 19(2)'s public order exception.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.