Recently, in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, controversy erupted when several boards and posters carrying the simple message “I Love Muhammad (peace be upon him)” were displayed during Milad un Nabi celebrations. Within hours, police booked more than two dozen individuals under charges linked to disturbing communal harmony.
For many, this incident has raised a fundamental question: Can a person in a democracy face legal action simply for expressing love for their Prophet or religious figure?
The Legal Background
India’s Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). However, this right is not absolute. The state can impose restrictions under Article 19(2) to maintain public order, morality, or to prevent incitement to violence.
Police often rely on Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.” Importantly, the Supreme Court has clarified that casual or sincere expressions of faith do not amount to a crime there must be proven malicious intent.
In earlier judgments, including Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP and Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, courts ruled that unwitting or peaceful religious statements cannot be punished unless they are designed to provoke or insult.
Where Authorities May Have Overstepped
In the Kanpur case, the message itself “I Love Muhammad” carries no derogatory or provocative content. At most, the dispute arose because the boards were placed near the route of a Hindu procession. Instead of facilitating dialogue or ensuring peaceful coexistence, authorities chose the route of FIRs and arrests.
This raises concerns:
- Was there real malicious intent? Or was it simply an open display of faith?
- Did the police act under pressure of “possible tension” rather than clear evidence of wrongdoing?
- Are such actions undermining democracy? When the peaceful expression of love for one’s Prophet leads to police cases, it signals that constitutional rights are being restricted by fear of potential backlash.
Why This Matters
This case is not just about one religious message. It reflects a deeper issue about the shrinking space for religious freedom and free expression in India. If peaceful displays of devotion can be criminalized because “someone might take offense,” then the principle of democracy itself comes under strain.
India’s democratic fabric is built on the coexistence of multiple faiths. Every community has the right to express its love and devotion, whether through processions, symbols, or words. Selective policing risks creating resentment and alienation.
A Call for Balance
- For Citizens: Expressing faith peacefully is your constitutional right. At the same time, be mindful of context to avoid unnecessary flashpoints.
- For Authorities: Law enforcement should act firmly against incitement or hate speech, but not against messages of love or devotion. Over policing weakens trust in institutions.
- For Society: Respect for each other’s faith must remain a shared value. Differences in practice should not be allowed to spiral into confrontation.
Conclusion
The phrase “I Love Muhammad (peace be upon him)” is not an insult, nor an incitement. It is a personal declaration of faith. Booking citizens under criminal charges for such expressions risks eroding both religious freedom and democratic principles.
India must remember that democracy does not mean the absence of faith it means the ability of people of all faiths to express themselves without fear.
