Q. Critically examine the Quranic concept of justice in cases of homicide, with special reference to its restorative principles as opposed to retributive punishments. Discuss its implications for contemporary criminal justice systems in Muslim societies.
Introduction
- The Quranic philosophy of justice incorporates both qisaas (legal retribution) and diyah (compensation/blood money), but emphasises restorative justice—promoting forgiveness, reconciliation, and social harmony.
- Verses such as 4:92 and 2:178–179 encourage pardoning the offender and offering fair compensation, reflecting a shift from ancient retributive norms to compassionate dispute resolution.
- In the contemporary context, this approach resonates with United Nations Principles on Restorative Justice (2002), which stress repairing harm and reintegrating offenders.
Body
- Quranic Framework on Homicide and Bodily Harm
- Qisaas (Retribution) – Life for life, injury for injury, as a deterrent (2:178–179, 5:45).
- Diyah (Compensation) – Monetary payment to victim’s family, particularly in unintentional killings (4:92).
- Forgiveness and Mercy – Victim’s heirs urged to pardon offenders, with forgiveness seen as a spiritual act of atonement.
- Restorative Nature of Quranic Justice
- Encourages dialogue between victim’s family and offender to determine an outcome beneficial to both sides.
- Shifts from vengeance to reconciliation and moral healing.
- Embeds justice within moral accountability and social harmony.
- Prophetic traditions (Hadith in Abu Dawud) reinforce mercy as a divine expectation—“Show mercy on earth, so mercy will be shown to you from the heavens.”
- Historical Context
- Pre-Islamic Arabian, Hebrew (Exodus 21), and Mesopotamian laws allowed victim’s family to decide punishment.
- Quranic law refined these by making forgiveness a preferred virtue, elevating mercy above retaliation.
- Contemporary Relevance – The Nimisha Priya Case (Yemen, 2017–2025)
- Alleged unintentional killing of business associate while retrieving her passport.
- Under Quran 4:92, if proven unintentional, only diyah applies—not death penalty.
- Current legal systems in some Muslim countries apply sectarian jurisprudence over direct Quranic injunctions, often favouring retribution.
- Highlights the gap between scriptural principles and legal practice in modern Islamic states.
- Issues in Application Today
- Sectarian Interpretation: Dominance of post-Prophetic juristic schools over Quranic ethical framework.
- Political–Religious Alliances: Use of religion to legitimise authoritarian power.
- Patriarchal Biases: Marginalisation of restorative ethics in favour of punitive measures.
Way Forward
- Legal Reform in Muslim States
- Codify restorative provisions of Quranic criminal law in national penal codes.
- Recognise victim–offender mediation as a legal process.
- Judicial Training
- Train judges and lawyers in Quranic principles of justice and modern restorative practices.
- Public Awareness
- Community engagement to reduce stigma against pardoning offenders.
- International Collaboration
- Align with UN restorative justice standards while respecting religious principles.
- Theological Re-engagement
- Encourage ijtihad (independent reasoning) to reinterpret laws in light of Quran’s moral objectives.
Conclusion
The Quranic justice model in homicide cases is inherently restorative, not purely retributive. It prioritises forgiveness, compensation, and healing over vengeance, aligning with universal human rights and modern restorative justice frameworks. Bridging the gap between these scriptural ideals and current practices in Muslim societies is essential for a justice system that reflects the Quran’s ethos of mercy (Al-Rahman, Al-Raheem) and the constitutional values of human dignity and fairness.
Syllabus Linkage
- GS Paper 2 – Governance, Constitution, Social Justice; mechanisms for protection of vulnerable sections.
- GS Paper 4 – Ethical issues in criminal justice; empathy, compassion, and restorative justice models.
Previous Year UPSC Mains Questions
- 2021 (GS 4): “The true measure of justice lies in the spirit of mercy.” Discuss with suitable examples.
- 2020 (GS 2): “Judicial reforms must balance deterrence with rehabilitation.” Examine.
- 2018 (GS 4): “Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.” How can this principle be applied in justice delivery?
.
Q. Growing judicial sensitivity to public sentiments is threatening the constitutional guarantee of free speech in India. Critically examine with reference to recent cases, constitutional principles, and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding democratic dissent.
📍Syllabus Linkage:
• GS Paper II – Indian Constitution: Fundamental Rights (Article 19), Judiciary
• GS Paper II – Governance: Accountability, Role of Civil Liberties
• GS Paper IV – Ethics in Public Administration: Moral Courage, Constitutional Morality
Introduction
The right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is a cornerstone of Indian democracy. It exists to empower citizens to question, critique, and dissent—especially against the state. However, recent judicial trends show an increasing tendency to police speech based on subjective public sentiment rather than clear constitutional thresholds. This shift, as Sanjay Hegde argues, signals a regressive inversion of constitutional values, prioritising decorum over liberty.
Body
- Emerging Trends: Managing Speech, Not Defending It
- The Allahabad High Court (May 2025) upheld an FIR against a youth for calling the Prime Minister “coward” post-Operation Sindoor, citing “overflowing emotions”.
- In the Kamal Haasan case, the Karnataka High Court advised an apology for a linguistic remark, bypassing legal standards such as incitement or defamation.
- Podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia was questioned for explicit language without establishing any threat to public order or morality.
- Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was investigated for a tweet critiquing India’s war optics—highlighting the judicial legitimization of offence-based policing.
- Constitutional Misreading and the “Market for Offence”
- Article 19(2) allows restrictions only on specific grounds: public order, defamation, incitement—not hurt sentiments or offended sensibilities.
- Encouraging apologies fosters a “popularity test” for speech, where outrage becomes the threshold for legality.
- FIRs under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 152 and 353(2) (meant for threats to sovereignty) are increasingly used against sarcasm and dissent—raising concerns of sedition-like misuse.
- Chilling Effect and Democratic Erosion
- Even without convictions, criminal proceedings themselves serve as punishment, deterring future speech.
- The “chilling effect doctrine”, though recognized in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), remains weakly enforced in practice.
- Select courts like the Madras High Court have resisted this trend, but narrative correction is not a substitute for structural speech protection.
Way Forward
- Return to Principle-Centric Adjudication
Judges must ask whether a right was violated, not whether emotions were hurt. - Reject Vague Restrictions
Courts should narrowly interpret public order clauses and demand evidence of incitement, not offence. - Decriminalize Expression
Parliament should amend or repeal vague provisions that invite arbitrary invocation against criticism or satire. - Enforce Chilling Effect Doctrine
Uphold the doctrine with institutional commitment, ensuring FIRs are quashed swiftly when legal thresholds are unmet.
Conclusion
Democracies thrive not on politeness but on robust, even provocative dissent. The judiciary, envisioned as the counter-majoritarian bulwark, must protect speech even when it is unpopular. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said, “the world owes much to rebels who dare to argue.” If courts become curators of culture rather than guardians of liberty, India risks silencing its constitutional conscience. The time has come to reaffirm the right to offend, as integral to the freedom to speak.
Previous Year Questions Linkage:
- GS2 (2021): “Constitutional morality is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on the essential facets of dignity and freedom. Discuss.”
- GS2 (2020): “Judiciary must be proactive in protecting Fundamental Rights. Critically examine.”
- GS4 (2022): “How can public trust be maintained in institutions through transparency and ethical communication?”
Q. In multilingual India, linguistic pride must coexist with constitutional values of free speech and democratic dissent. Discuss the Kamal Haasan episode to critically analyse the judiciary’s role and the boundaries of cultural expression. (500 words)
📍Syllabus Linkage:
- GS Paper II – Indian Constitution: Fundamental Rights (Article 19), Judiciary, Federalism and Regionalism
- GS Paper IV – Ethics in Governance: Tolerance, Moral Courage, Freedom of Expression
- GS Paper II – Issues relating to cultural pluralism and linguistic diversity
Introduction
India’s rich linguistic heritage is often a source of pride, but it can also become a flashpoint when perceived hierarchies or dominance are asserted. The recent Kamal Haasan–Kannada language controversy, wherein a statement on Tamil’s linguistic precedence was judicially scrutinized, raises serious concerns regarding the judiciary’s role in balancing cultural expression and constitutional rights.
Body
- The Context: Kamal Haasan’s Statement
- At a public event, actor Kamal Haasan remarked that “Kannada was born from Tamil”, triggering backlash.
- Linguistically, this reflects a long-standing Tamil nationalist narrative that sees Tamil as the source of all Dravidian languages—an idea not widely accepted beyond Tamil Nadu.
- Historically, linguists such as Robert Caldwell have proposed the existence of a Proto-Dravidian language from which modern Dravidian languages emerged.
- Constitutional Values vs Sentimental Outrage
- Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
- The Karnataka High Court, in a case concerning Haasan’s film Thug Life, almost compelled an apology—reflecting a sentiment-driven adjudication rather than principle-based constitutional reasoning.
- The Supreme Court (2023) had reiterated in Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh that speech, unless inciting violence or disorder, must be constitutionally protected even if unpopular.
- Ethical and Democratic Considerations
- Expression of linguistic pride, when framed within a fraternal or historical lens, must not be equated with linguistic chauvinism.
- Courts should uphold the constitutional right to offend, as long as it does not result in incitement or hate speech.
- Violent reactions, threats, or demands for bans compromise the pluralistic ethos of democracy and must be treated as criminal intimidation, not legitimate dissent.
- The Judiciary’s Role in Safeguarding Free Expression
- Courts must distinguish between law-and-order concerns and constitutional questions.
- The judiciary must resist functioning as a kattapanchayat enforcing compromise, and instead uphold rights impartially.
- The courage shown by Haasan in refusing to apologise underscores the need for civil courage in public discourse.
Way Forward
- Promote Linguistic Federalism with Mutual Respect
Encourage dialogue that respects linguistic diversity without asserting supremacy. - Judicial Sensitivity to Expression Rights
High Courts must adopt a freedom-centric lens in culturally sensitive cases. - Strengthen Hate Speech Threshold
Define clear guidelines for what constitutes incitement vs discomfort in speech jurisprudence. - Penalise Intimidation, Not Expression
Protect the right to dissent and prosecute threats, irrespective of ideological position.
Conclusion
India’s democratic and constitutional commitment to free expression must not be diluted by popular sentiment or cultural sensitivities. The judiciary, as the ultimate guardian of rights, must assert constitutional morality over majoritarian morality. The Kamal Haasan episode is a reminder that expression must be protected, not policed, and that disagreement must be countered with dialogue, not disruption.
Previous Year Questions Linkage:
- GS2 (2021): “Constitutional morality is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on the essential facets of dignity and freedom. Discuss.”
- GS2 (2019): “In the context of diversity of India, can it be said that tolerance is the key element that keeps India united?”
- GS4 (2022): “How can public institutions strengthen tolerance and safeguard freedom of expression in a diverse society?”