INTRODUCTION
According to Britannica, hate speech is “speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons based on (alleged) membership in a social group identified by attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, and others.”[1] The term “hate speech” has no clear definition. Different definitions are provided under different provisions. It is covered under various sections of BNS and other relevant laws like The Representation of the People Act, 1951[2], The Protection of Civil Rights Act (PCR), 1955[3], Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988[4].
Article 19(1)(a)[5] of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to free speech. It provides freedom of speech and expression to the citizens so that they can freely express their opinions, thoughts, and beliefs through any means like through speech, expression, and visual representation.
HATE SPEECH PROVISIONS
Provisions under BNS
Section 196[6] provides that whoever promotes enmity or commits an act that jeopardizes the preservation of harmony among various racial, religious, linguistic, or geographical communities shall be punished with imprisonment.
Section 197[7] deals with punishment to those who publish anything that imputes any class of person because of them being a member of any religious, racial, or language to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred.
Section 298[8] provides for imprisonment or a fine to those who destroy or damage any place of worship or any sacred object to insult the religion of that class.
Section 353[9] addresses the publication or circulation of any statement, false information, rumour or report to incite any class or community to commit any offence against the other caste or induce them to commit an offence against the state.
Provisions under ROPA, 1951
An appeal by the candidate with his consent to vote or refrain from voting any person on the grounds of his religion, race, caste, community or language is considered a corrupt electoral practice under section 123(3).[10]
Moreover section 123(3A)[11] and 125[12] considers promotion or attempt to promote feeling of enmity or hatred between different classes based on religion, race, caste, community, or language as corrupt electoral practices.
Section 5B[13] of Cinematograph Act, 1952 says that the film or any part of it is against the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court shall not be certified for public exhibition.
As such, there is no exact definition of hate speech; nonetheless, rules under several acts provide a general understanding of it and outline the consequences for those who perpetrate such incidents.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF HATE SPEECH
In the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India[14], the Supreme Court struck down section 66A of the IT Act and defined information that incites hatred toward specific people or groups based on caste, ethnicity, religion, race, information that uses derogatory, violent, and/or extremely provocative statements against religion, race, or caste in an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of a specific faith, race, or caste as hate speech.
Hate speech was defined as “an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group.” in Pravasi Bhalai v Union of India[15].
Besides these case laws Article 19(2)[16] puts reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
CHALLENGES IN REGULATING HATE SPEECH
Determining the boundary between hate speech and freedom of speech and expression is the first difficulty in regulating hate speech. Although freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed by Article 19[17], there are certain justifiable limitations on this freedom. One’s freedom shouldn’t come at the expense of another’s fundamental rights.
Furthermore, it might be challenging to comprehend that what is deemed acceptable by one segment of society could not be by another. For example, the Muslim community will tolerate a speech on eating cow beef, but the Hindu community will not.
Memes that disparage a well-known figure may be appreciated by those who dislike them, but others will criticize them.
In India, hate speech is disseminated by social media platforms. Negative outcomes result when laws are not strictly enforced. In 2024, hate speech incidents in India increased by 74.4%. Political figures were responsible for 39.7% of hate remarks, according to the 2024 IHL report[18]. A rise in the proportion is too much the fault of political leaders. These politicians abuse their right to free speech and expression to increase their number of votes. People become widely enraged as a result of their speeches.
Recently Ranveer Allahabadia’s hateful comments on “India’s Got Latent” sparked a heated argument. His comments were called “perverted, dirty, and disgusting” in several FIRs that were made against him. Laws such as the BNS and IT Act are in place to control the abuse of freedom, but since the phrase “hate speech” is arbitrary, a precise definition is necessary. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and others, are accountable[19].
Above mentioned laws are there against hate speeches, but the inefficiency lies in the weak implementation of them.
CONCLUSION
An unambiguous legal definition of hate speech will address the problem of the contentious discussions that occur whenever someone talks, which leads to disputes between various groups.
It will be helpful to draw a distinction between hate speech and freedom of speech and expression to eliminate the severe consequences. This distinction, though, can only be made when people are informed and conscious of their rights. Volunteers or the government can organize awareness initiatives to raise this level of awareness.
Religious leaders use religion as a tactic to win over voters. Most of the Indian population does not completely understand the tactics used by leaders due to their low educational backgrounds.
The largest source of hate speech is social media. When it comes to content moderation, online platforms should take responsibility. Platforms have a need to filter hate speech, but they also need to be cautious not to go too far in banning other points of view or limiting acceptable free expression. A careful, open approach to content moderation that upholds both individual liberties and the general welfare is necessary to strike this balance[20].
Although it may sound like a pipe dream, having a good conscience can end all social tensions.
Furthermore, educated people are less likely to be incensed by political leaders’ hate speech that is solely motivated by political goals.
Author(s) Name: Jasleen Kaur Chahal (Chandigarh Group Of Colleges)
References:
[1]William M. Curtis, ‘Hate Speech’ (Britannica, 21 February 2025) <Hate speech | Definition, Examples & Consequences | Britannica> (accessed 22 February 2025)
[2] The Representation of People Act, 1951
[3] The Protection of Civil Rights Act (PCR), 1955
[4] Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988
[5] Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)(a)
[6] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 196
[7] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 197
[8] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 298
[9] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 353
[10] The Representation of The People Act 1950, s 123(3)
[11] The Representation of The People Act 1950, s 123(3A)
[12] The Representation of The People Act 1950, s 125
[13] Cinematograph Act 1952, s 5B
[14] Shreya Singhal v Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523
[15] Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v Union of India and Ors AIR 2014 SC 1591
[16] Constitution of India 1950, art 19 (2)
[17] Constitution of India 1950, art 19
[18] Center for the Study of Organized hate, Report 2024: Hate Speech Events in India
[19]‘Regulations in face of vulgarity’ The Hindustan Times (20 February 2025) pg 10
[20]Sarthak Bobade,‘HATE SPEECH REGULATION IN INDIA- LEGAL FRAMEWORK, DIGITAL CHALLENGES, AND SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS’ (2024)4(4) Indian Journal Of Legal Review < https://ijlr.iledu.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ V4I4103.pdf> accessed 20 February 2025
