Justice Potter Stewart, in 1964, while ruling in a case on obscenity, wrote, “I know it when I see it”. This is, of course, no test at all, as it depends solely on the subjective opinion of a judge. Blasphemy is similarly subjective, and the law in India, a necessarily pluralistic polity long before it became a secular republic, has grappled with the subjective offence taken on behalf of religious communities from insults to their religion.
Given the highly charged political environment and the emotions associated with religious belief, thus far, the law, in theory, if not in practice, has evolved with caution, so as to temper the subjective belief of those offended with the need to allow for freedom of speech and checks and balances. These are nuances that have often been lost in the dust of everyday policing but remain the constitutional touchstones for balancing the constitutional right to free speech with the state’s interest in protecting law and order and religious harmony.