Instances of grieving families expending their life savings on a “tantric” who promises to lift a curse, or of women branded as witches and driven from their villages, remain unfortunately common across India. For an extended period, the law afforded such victims no meaningful recourse. This deficit in legal protection explains the significance of the Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act, 2017[1] which represents a legislative effort to address systematic exploitation through superstitious practices.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Indian legal system has previously grappled with the challenge of distinguishing between legitimate religious practices and exploitation masquerading as religious justifications. Way back in 1883, in Empress v Ramji Lal[2]. The Allahabad High Court made it clear that characterising conduct as a religious ritual does not render it lawful where it causes actual harm, a principle that remains relevant in contemporary jurisprudence.
However, the Indian Penal Code was not designed to address systematised exploitation through superstitious practices. The IPC[3] could address a fraudster or a person causing hurt; however, it was ill-equipped to address a person who systematically terrorises a family for months through “ghost surgery” or exorcism rituals. The existing statutory framework did not adequately address organised exploitation of this nature.
A significant impetus for legislative reform came from the assassination of Dr Narendra Dabholkar, a prominent anti-superstition activist, in 2013[4]. Maharashtra responded with landmark legislation in the same year. Karnataka subsequently enacted analogous legislation in 2017, following a Sessions Court judgment in a case involving substantial financial exploitation of a farmer by a ritualistic practitioner, in which the court recommended legislative reform to address such abuses.[5]
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
A notable feature of this Act is that it is not merely a list of prohibited conduct. The statute embodies a deliberate and thoughtful approach to statutory drafting.
The definitional provisions are of particular significance. Instead of vaguely saying “black magic is whatever seems harmful,” Section 2(c)[6] ties the definition strictly to 18 specific acts listed in a Schedule. This approach provides clarity to persons subject to the law and prevents judicial overreach beyond the legislature’s contemplated scope. This aligns with the principle from Tolaram Relumal v State of Bombay.[7] Penal statutes should be construed strictly in favour of the accused.
On the flip side, the definition of “victim[8]” is deliberately wide, covering physical harm, mental harm, financial exploitation, sexual exploitation, and even offence to dignity. This formulation provides a broad protective scope whilst maintaining narrowly-defined criminal liability. Such an equilibrium is essential to constitutional legitimacy.
The prescribed penalties, imprisonment from one to seven years and fines extending to ₹50,000 are substantial.[9] Notably, Section 3(2) provides that victim consent constitutes no defence to prosecution. Victims frequently maintain a genuine belief in the legitimacy of the ritualistic practices directed toward them. Their “consent” is built on fear, manipulation, or faith, not free choice.[10].
The Act additionally contains a deeming provision whereby death resulting from a scheduled practice is treated as culpable homicide. Where the victim commits suicide, the abetment of suicide provisions are engaged. This approach creates a coherent nexus between the special statute and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita without rendering the Act redundant, demonstrating careful legislative architecture.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
The most important case under this Act so far is Shabaz Masoom v State of Karnataka.[11] . The case involved a complaint by a husband against his wife and an associate, alleging that WhatsApp communications between them discussing black magic constituted evidence of intent to cause him harm.
Justice Naga Prasanna dismissed the complaint. His reasoning was straightforward: Section 3(1) uses the word “performing[12]“ That means you have to actually do something or at least attempt it. Mere communication regarding black magic, without corresponding conduct constituting performance or attempt, does not constitute an offence under the statute. The Court called it “plain and simple marital discord dressed with black magic.”
This decision is significant beyond its purely legal dimensions. It demonstrates that legislation crafted with beneficent intent may be appropriated as an instrument of harassment in personal disputes. Judicial scrutiny serves an essential gatekeeping function in such contexts. The judgment exemplifies appropriate judicial restraint according to the Act, serious effect, whilst preventing its misuse as a harassment mechanism.
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
The principal constitutional challenge to the Karnataka Black Magic Act arises under Article 25[13] of the Constitution of India, which guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. At first glance, restrictions on certain ritualistic practices may appear to interfere with religious liberty. However, Article 25(1)[14] does not confer an absolute right. The constitutional guarantee is expressly made subject to public order, morality, health and the other provisions of Part III.
The Supreme Court has consistently recognised that the State may regulate or prohibit practices that cause social harm, even where such practices are claimed to possess a religious character. In M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India[15], the Court reaffirmed that religious freedom under Article 25 is not immune from reasonable regulation in the interests of public welfare. Furthermore, Indian constitutional jurisprudence distinguishes between genuinely essential religious practices and secular, superstitious or exploitative activities carried out under the guise of religion. Practices involving physical injury, human degradation, financial exploitation or coercion cannot claim constitutional protection merely because they are presented as matters of faith.
The constitutional validity of the Act is further strengthened by Section 15[16], which contains an explicit savings provision protecting genuine religious worship, prayer, festivals, astrological consultation, vastu consultation, and miracles attributed to saints, provided such practices do not cause physical injury. This provision constitutes a substantial exception to the Act’s scope and demonstrates that the legislation targets exploitative conduct that threatens human dignity, health and public welfare, rather than religious belief or practice itself. This distinction constitutes the essential basis for the Act’s constitutional validity, and reflects a constitutionally permissible exercise of the State’s power to balance religious freedom with the broader objectives of social reform and protection of vulnerable individuals.
LIMITATION
Technology has outpaced the Schedule. Contemporary technological platforms, including dedicated websites offering virtual ritualistic services and paid online curse-removal ceremonies, facilitate financial and psychological exploitation. The applicability of the eighteen scheduled practices to such technologically-mediated conduct remains legally uncertain. Exploitation through superstitious practices has evolved beyond traditional localised practice models.
Psychological coercion isn’t clearly covered.[17]. If someone repeatedly tells a vulnerable person that they’re cursed, isolates them from family, and manipulates them through fear without ever “performing” a scheduled act, the Shabaz Masoom threshold may not be met. This represents a substantive gap in statutory coverage.
There’s no victim compensation mechanism. Victims subjected to substantial financial defrauding or prolonged psychological abuse receive no restitution mechanism beyond the remedial satisfaction of conviction, where obtained.
There’s no central law. Multiple Indian states, including Karnataka, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Rajasthan, have enacted separate legislation with varying provisions. The fragmented approach creates jurisdictional gaps and permits perpetrators to operate across state boundaries to evade state-specific statutes.
CONCLUSION
The Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act represents serious and considered legislative drafting. The statute addresses exploitation rather than policing belief systems. Judicial interpretation has demonstrated appropriate restraint and purposive application, essential qualities for legislation navigating the intersecting domains of criminal law, religious freedom, and social reform.
Legislation’s efficacy ultimately depends upon competent and consistent enforcement. Section 12[18] mandates public awareness initiatives that require substantial institutional commitment to effectuation. Designated enforcement officers require comprehensive and continuous training. The legislature must periodically review and update the Schedule, as exploitative practices evolve with greater rapidity than statutory amendment procedures.
Constitutional Article 51A(h)[19] imposes an obligation upon citizens to cultivate a scientific temperament and rational thought. The act constitutes the legal embodiment of this constitutional aspiration. Its success depends not primarily upon statutory language but upon institutional will and sustained commitment to implementation.
Author(s) Name: Anusha Hiremath (KLE LAW College, Bengaluru)
References:
[1] Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act 2017
[2] Empress v Ramji Lal (1883) ILR 5 All 241.
[3] Indian Penal Code 1860.
[4] Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act 2013.
[5] Statement of Objects and Reasons, Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Bill 2017.
[6] Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act 2017, s 2(c) sch.
[7] Tolaram Relumal v State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 496.
[8] Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act 2017, s 2(e).
[9]Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act 2017, s 3.
[10]Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act 2017, s 3(2)
[11] Shabaz Masoom v State of Karnataka 2024 SCC Online Kar.
[12]Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act 2017, s 3(1).
[13] Constitution of India 1950, art 25.
[14] Constitution of India 1950, art 25(1)
[15] M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360
[16] Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act 2017, s 15
[17]Aparna Chandra, ‘Freedom of Religion and Social Reform’ (2017) 9 NUJS Law Review 45.
[18] Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act 2017, s 12
[19] Constitution of India 1950, art 51A(h)