INTRODUCTION
Every state is responsible for maintaining its peace and ensuring that its residents coexist harmoniously. On Thursday, December 18, 2025, the Karnataka Legislative Assembly approved “The Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Control and Prevention) Bill, 2025”[1]. This law seeks to discourage and punish hate speech and hate crimes that foster animosity, hatred, or hostility within the community. The law is designed to prevent communications that incite discord, establish penalties for such actions, and ensure equitable compensation for those impacted by these actions.[2]. This blog provides a detailed explanation of the Act and the rationale behind its implementation.
BACKGROUND
The recent event referred to as the “Revenge Killing” took place in Mangalore plays a significant role, where an individual named Suhas Shetty was killed, driven exclusively by individual grievances and a desire for retribution[3]. This occurrence ignited anger, prompting the Karnataka Government to contemplate establishing a specialized anti-communal unit in reaction to the increasing violence and hate speech.[4] Since hate speech and hostility often result in societal violence, this legislation was proposed to give the government oversight over its citizens and reduce the likelihood of hate crimes occurring.
DEFINITIONS EXPLAINED
Hate speech refers to any expression shared publicly, such as spoken words, written text, signs, images, or electronic messages. It aims to harm others or create hatred, hostility, or conflict against a person, group, or community, regardless of whether the target is living or deceased.
Prejudicial interest describes discrimination or bias based on personal traits, including religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, place of residence, language, disability, or tribe.
A hate crime involves creating, publishing, sharing, or promoting hate speech, or trying to do so. The intent is to spread hatred, hostility, or conflict against an individual, group, or organization, whether the target is living or deceased. Communication is the public sharing of an expression through spoken words, printed materials, publications, electronic media, or any other method used to convey information or ideas.[5]
Organisation and Institution here means any group of individuals, regardless of whether they are registered or not.[6]
PUNISHMENT
Anyone found guilty of committing a hate crime will face imprisonment for a minimum of one year, which may last up to seven years, along with a fine of Rs.50,000/-.and in the case of any further or repeated offenses, the penalty shall be not less than two years, which may go up to a maximum of ten years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-.The Court has the authority to grant suitable compensation to the victim by assessing the harm inflicted by the hate crime, based on the severity of the crime’s impact.[7]
EXCEPTION
- This shall not apply to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, or figure, whether in electronic format or otherwise, whose publication is demonstrated to be justified for the public good based because it serves the interests of science, literature, art, learning, or other matters of general importance; or that is maintained or utilized for genuine heritage or religious reasons.[8]
- Nothing in this section shall hold any individual accountable for punishment if they can demonstrate that the offence occurred without their knowledge, or that they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the occurrence of such an offence.[9]
- No legal action, prosecution, or other legal processes can be initiated against public servants for any actions taken in good faith or intended to be carried out under this Act, or the regulations established pursuant to it.[10]
CRIMES BY ORGANISATIONS OR INSTITUTIONS
If an offence under this Act is committed by an Organization or Institution, every individual who was in charge of and responsible for the operations of that Organization or Institution at the time of the offence, as well as the Organization or Institution itself, will be considered guilty of that offence and can be prosecuted and punished accordingly.[11]
POWERS
- Power to prevent or eliminate the hate crime content: The officer appointed by the State Government will have the authority to instruct any service provider, intermediary, individual, or organization to eliminate or block hate crime content from its platform, including electronic media.[12]
- Power to address challenges: If any challenges occur in implementing the provisions of this Act, the State Government may, through an order published in the Official Gazette, establish measures to resolve such challenges. Provided that no such order shall be issued under this section after three years from the initiation of this Act.[13]
OBJECT
- Restrict and prohibit the spread, publication, or encouragement of hate speech and crimes that foster discord and animosity within society, directed towards individuals or groups of people, and organizations.
- Establish penalties for such offenses.
- Ensure sufficient compensation for the victims affected.[14]
CASELAWS
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Facts: The incident started when two women, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan, shared posts on Facebook expressing their disapproval of a bandh organized by the Shiv Sena party following the death of Bal Thackeray. They were detained under Section 66A of the IT Act for supposedly sharing “offensive” content, igniting significant public indignation.
Issue: Was Section 66A of the IT Act a violation of the right to free expression?
Supreme Court Judgment: Section 66A was ruled unconstitutional due to its ambiguous wording and extensive scope.
Implication: This ruling safeguarded digital rights, established a benchmark for protecting free speech, and highlighted the necessity for precise legal definitions.
The case continues to shape conversations around digital rights and freedom of expression in India. This case emphasized the importance of finding a balance between the right to free expression and the need to prevent violence and communal disharmony.[15]
Manjar Syed Khan v State of Maharashtra:
Facts: Prof. James W. Laine’s book “Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India” was published by Oxford University Press India. A particular passage sparked objections from certain groups, which resulted in the publisher retracting the book and issuing an apology in November 2003. Nonetheless, violence ensued, including an assault on a scholar and the vandalism of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in January 2004. An FIR was lodged against the author, publisher, and printer under Sections 153, 153A, and 34 of the IPC.
Issues: The question arose regarding whether the FIR indicated cognizable offenses under Sections 153 or 153A IPC, necessitating continued investigation.
There was also a consideration of whether the FIR was an abuse of process, given the absence of mens rea (criminal intent) in inciting enmity.
Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal proceedings, determining that there was no intention to promote animosity or hatred. The Court highlighted the importance of assessing the book in its entirety, concluding that it was scholarly and didn’t aim to provoke conflict. The publisher’s withdrawal and the author’s apology reinforced the lack of criminal intent, resulting in the quashing of the FIR.[16]
CRITICISM
The BJP in Karnataka submitted a memorandum to the district commissioner of Bengaluru expressing their opposition to the Hate Speech and Hate Crime Prevention Bill, 2025. Party representatives claimed that the bill violates Article 19(1)[17] of the Constitution of India, contradicts constitutional principles, and aims to stifle dissent against the Congress government. The memorandum labeled the bill as anti-democratic, alleging that it provides excessive authority to law enforcement and the government. The BJP voiced worries about the requirement for non-bailable clauses, warning that vague preventive provisions could criminalize citizens, hinder protests and social movements, and lead to the mistreatment of activists, journalists, and social media users.[18]
CONCLUSION
Although there are existing Laws on Hate speech like promoting enmity[19], Outraging religious feelings[20], Statements conducing to public mischief[21], The Karnataka bill offers a comprehensive definition of both ‘Hate speech’ and ‘Hate crime.’ The penalties have also been heightened. This legislation assists citizens by creating a legal structure to combat hate speech and hate crimes. A key feature is the implementation of collective liability, which makes the entire criminal organization accountable for its actions. Furthermore, the bill encompasses measures to provide compensation for victims and empowers authorities to remove hate-related content from online platforms. The offenses are cognizable, non-bailable, and are to be tried by a Judicial Magistrate First Class. The law mandates that adequate compensation be given to victims. It also offers an exemption for materials (such as books, pamphlets, artworks, etc.) that can be demonstrated to serve the public good.[22]
Author(s) Name: Catherine A (Kristu Jayanti College of Law)
References:
[1] The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025 (KHSHCB)
[2] Et Online, ‘Karnataka Clears Hate Speech Bill: What Counts as an Offence, Punishments and Penalties Explained’ (The Economic Times, 19 December 2025) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/karnataka-hate-hate-speech-bill-news-what-is-karnataka-hate-speech-bill/articleshow/126072489.cms> accessed 22 December 2025
[3] TNN, ‘Revenge, Rivalry, and an Rs 5L Deal: Suhas Shetty Murder Linked to 2022 Fazil Killing? Police Say Accused Had Old Scores to Settle’ (The Times of India, 5 May 2025) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mangaluru/revenge-rivalry-and-an-rs-5l-deal-suhas-shetty-murder-linked-to-2022-fazil-killing-police-say-accused-had-old-scores-to-settle/articleshow/120887676.cms > accessed 24 December 2025
[4] TOI News Desk, ‘Karnataka Clears Hate Speech Bill: What Counts as Offence, Punishment, Exemptions — Explained’ (The Times of India, 18 December 2025) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/karnataka-clears-hate-speech-bill-what-counts-as-offence-punishment-exemptions-explained/articleshow/126057783.cms>accessed 24 December 2025
[5] KHSHCB (n1), s 2(1)
[6] KHSHCB (n1), s 5
[7] KHSHCB (n1), ss 3(1), (2)
[8] KHSHCB (n1), s 3(4)
[9] KHSHCB (n1), s 5
[10] KHSHCB (n1), s 8
[11] KHSHCB (n1)
[12] KHSHCB (n1), s 6
[13] KHSHCB (n1), s 9
[14] The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crime (Prevention) Act 2025
[15] Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
[16] Manzar Sayeed Khan v State of Maharashtra (2007) 5 SCC 1
[17] The Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)
[18] ‘MSN’<https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/india/karnataka-bjp-opposes-hate-speech-bill-claims-violation-of-constitutional-rights/ar-AA1SSDUN> accessed 27 December 2025
[19] The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 196 (BNS)
[20] Ibid, s 299
[21] BNS (n18), s 153(b)
[22] Vajiram Mains Team, ‘Karnataka Hate Speech Bill Explained: Key Features, Legal Gaps & Supreme Court’s Role’ (User’s Blog, 8 December 2025) <https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/karnataka-hate-speech-bill-explained-key-features-legal-gaps-supreme-courts-role/> accessed 27 December 2025
