Hate Speech: Regulation & Challenges Associated

Karnataka has introduced the Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, to create India’s first State-level law explicitly defining hate speech.

What is Hate Speech?

UN defines hate speech as any kind of communication, verbal, written or behavioral, that is hostile or uses derogatory or discriminatory language against any person or group of people on the basis of who they are, or, in other words, on the basis of their religion, ethnic origin, nationality, race, skin color, social origin, gender and other identity factors.
Hate speech has not been defined in any law in India.

India’s Legal Framework Against Hate Speech

BNS Section 196 (Ex-153A IPC): Penalises promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, language, etc.
BNS Section 299 (Ex-295A IPC): Punishes deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
BNS Section 353: Penalises statements likely to incite offences against State or disturb public order.
IT Act 2015 (Section 66A): Previously used for online content, struck down by the Supreme Court (Shreya Singhal Judgement) for being vague and overbroad.
Tehseen Poonawalla Judgment (2018): Mandated nodal officers to prevent hate crimes and mob violence, especially related to targeted group attacks.

Key Provisions of Karnataka Hate Speech Bill, 2025

Explicit Definition: Covers expressions causing injury, hostility, or disharmony based on religion, caste, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, disability, or place of birth.
Punishment Range: Imprisonment from 2 to 10 years with fines, based on severity and recurrence.
Collective Liability: If a crime is linked to an organisation, office-bearers can be held as culprits.
Online Regulation: The State is empowered to remove or restrict digital content carrying hate speech.
Suo Motu Action: Enables police to act without a formal complaint in specified circumstances.

Challenges in its Regulation

Low Convictions: Only 1 in 5 cases under Sec. 153A result in conviction (20.2%, NCRB).
Over-criminalisation Risk: 2,000+ arrests annually, but weak evidence collection leads to acquittals.
Online Escalation: 70% hate speech content originates online/off social media (NCRB).
Subjective Definition: SC noted (2023) that difficulty in “defining hate speech objectively” leads to misuse.
Political Influence: Hate speech FIR filings rise by 30–50% before elections (Common Cause study, 2022).

Current Affairs

PMF IAS Prelims Magnum Current Affairs Magazines for Prelims

SC Judgements on Hate Speech

Pravsi Bhali Sangathan v. Union of India: The Supreme Court refused to criminalise hate speech in the absence of specific legislation. It requested the Law Commission to consider defining “hate speech” and recommend strengthening laws.
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (SC): Upheld Section 295A IPC, which penalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Held that such speech can be restricted in the interest of public order, reinforcing that hate speech causing public disorder is not protected under free speech.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): This case focused on online hate speech, striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which allowed authorities to block online content deemed “grossly offensive or harassing.
Tehseen Poonawalla Judgment: The court had declared it the state’s “sacrosanct duty” to protect the dignity and lives of citizens from hate crimes.

Way Forward

Clear Definition: Adopt harm-based definitions (incitement + targeting) to avoid vague interpretation. (Law Commission 267^thReport).
Independent Nodal: Create independent nodal authorities outside the police chain for hate speech monitoring. E.g. UK’s Crown Prosecution Service Hate Crime Units.
Digital Protocols: Mandate 48-hour takedown windows and traceability for repeat hate content pages.
Evidence Standards: Develop forensic documentation protocols for voice/video hate content to improve conviction. E.g. Delhi Police Cyber Forensics Lab protocols for hate speech.

As the Supreme Court held, “Free speech cannot be a licence for hate or violence,” reaffirming the balance under Article 19(2). A clear, harm-based law with independent oversight can curb hate speech while protecting constitutional freedoms and social harmony.

Reference: The Hindu

PMF IAS Pathfinder for Mains – Question 460

Q. Hate speech regulation in India must navigate the thin line between public order and free expression. Analyse how institutional reforms, rather than punitive overreach, can address hate speech without diluting Article 19. (150 Words) (10 Marks)

Approach

Introduction: Write a brief introduction about the hate speech in India by mentioning the latest data.
Body: Analyse how punitive overreach is problematic and institutional reforms can address hate speech without diluting Article 19.
Conclusion: Emphasis on balanced and effective regulation prevents hate crimes in India.