If you think that a historical figure - let's take Mahatma Gandhi as an example - was not everything he was cranked up to be and you said so which so provoked me that I started a riot, should you be send to jail for three years for provoking me? How about contrarian views on politics, events, even the law? You could say I have a vested interest in the answer because if the answer is yes, it is the end of the road for all columnists!

Actually, the Supreme Court of India has been invited to answer this exact question and it has done so on April 5th, 2007 in the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v/s State of Maharashtra. Let me take you to the facts. On May 28th, 2003, Oxford University Press ('OUP') published what it thought was a scholarly work entitled "Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India" authored by Prof. James W. Laine, a Professor of Religious Studies, Macalister College, USA. Some scholars found objection with one paragraph in this largish tome. They demanded an immediate apology and OUP offered it just as quickly. Almost immediately thereafter, OUP also withdrew all copies of the book from the market.

It wasn't enough. Even after the book was withdrawn, a mob attacked the Sanskrit Scholar, Shri Shashikant Bahulkar because he had helped Laine with his research while Laine was in Pune. Laine heard of this humiliation of a benefactor and immediately issued an unconditional apology, saying that the views were his alone and no offense was meant. Unfortunately, by then, the feeding frenzy was well underway. A short while later, a large mob allegedly belonging to something called the Shambhaji Brigade attacked the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune: 18,000 books and 30,000 rare manuscripts were destroyed. Laine apologized again in the print media on Jan 7th, 2004. It still wasn't enough. Four days later, the State of Maharashtra registered a FIR in Pune against Laine and OUP's CEO mainly under Sec 153A of the IPC. Since the book was already out of circulation, the police hadn't a copy of the book to look at determine exactly where the crime lay but they registered the FIR anyway and then asked OUP to supply them a copy! OUP gave them a copy of course and within days, the printer of the book was arrested and remanded to custody. Obviously, OUP's CEO was next, so he filed a criminal writ seeking to quash the FIR. Soon enough, the case ended up in the apex court.

To the extent relevant for our purpose, this is the substance of Section 153A:

"153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. Whoever:

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or

(c) shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

And so it came to be that the Supreme Court was asked to decide on the face of the FIR what if anything the publisher and printer could legitimately be accused of.