09-13-2007, 05:46 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs
1 [ 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 2 [citizens of India], 3 [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.] </b>
 http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianp.../S295A.htm
In terms of AIR 1958 SC 1032 Veerapathra Chettiar Vs. Ramaswamy Naicker, the latter violated the section when he broke a vinayaka vigraha. It doesn't matter if it is from a temple or whether puja has been done to the vigraha. EVR was punished under the Section according to the Supreme Court judgement.
-xx
One does not require evidence that Rama Setu was man made to protect it. For example, there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus existed, yet Christian shrines are protected as a mark of respect for Christian sentiments. There is no evidence that Allah exists or that Muhammad flew out to the heaven on a horse in an overnight expedition, yet the mosque that purports that story is protected as a mark of respect for Christian sentiments.Nothing more, nothing less, Hindus believe that Rama built a bridge in that area. It is sacred waters for the Hindus. It must be protected. One cannot have double standards.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rama Setu: court issues
1 [ 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 2 [citizens of India], 3 [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.] </b>
 http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianp.../S295A.htm
In terms of AIR 1958 SC 1032 Veerapathra Chettiar Vs. Ramaswamy Naicker, the latter violated the section when he broke a vinayaka vigraha. It doesn't matter if it is from a temple or whether puja has been done to the vigraha. EVR was punished under the Section according to the Supreme Court judgement.
-xx
One does not require evidence that Rama Setu was man made to protect it. For example, there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus existed, yet Christian shrines are protected as a mark of respect for Christian sentiments. There is no evidence that Allah exists or that Muhammad flew out to the heaven on a horse in an overnight expedition, yet the mosque that purports that story is protected as a mark of respect for Christian sentiments.Nothing more, nothing less, Hindus believe that Rama built a bridge in that area. It is sacred waters for the Hindus. It must be protected. One cannot have double standards.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rama Setu: court issues