law commission report on hate speech upsc

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Hate Speech

Last updated on October 29, 2022 by ClearIAS Team

Numerous events, including ones that occurred in a religious setting and on online forums, have targeted minority communities. This has brought attention to problems with the implementation of legislation to curb hate speech. What are the laws related to hate speech in India? Are there any new legal precedents on this menace? To know more, read further. 

In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) , the Supreme Court of India outlined its definition of hate speech as “an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group which seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.”

Hate speech, according to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), encompasses a wide range of expressions that encourage, incite, promote, or otherwise justify hatred, violence, or discrimination against an individual or a group of individuals for a number of different reasons.

The Law Commission of India’s 267th Report defines hate speech as an incitement to hatred directed principally towards a group of people who are identified by their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.

Table of Contents

What are the legal provisions related to Hate Speech in India?

• Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India puts reasonable restrictions on the Freedom of Speech including public order, decency or morality, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
• Section 153(a) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) punishes the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. with imprisonment up to 3 years.
• Section 153(b) of IPC punishes assertions prejudicial to national integration (e.g., asserting that a class of persons cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India) with imprisonment of up to 3 years.
• Section 295(a) of IPC punishes deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs with imprisonment for up to 3 years.
• Section 505(2) of IPC punishes statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill will between classes with imprisonment for up to 3 years.
• Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA) prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
• Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA b ar the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and include it under corrupt electoral practices.

Suggestions made by Law Commission

In its 267th report, the Law Commission of India proposed including the following two provisions:

• Section 153C covers  crimes committed when someone threatens someone with remarks meant to incite fear, hatred, or violence based on someone’s race, caste, religion, sex, gender identity, or other characteristics.
• Section 505A should be included and have provisions that make inciting fear, alarm, or violence a crime.

Interpretation of the Supreme Court related to Hate Speech

Following are the case laws wherein the Supreme court cleared its stand.

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan ⇓

(1) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims cum Mains

(2) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims Test Series

(3) ⇒ UPSC 2025: CSAT

Note: To know more about ClearIAS Courses (Online/Offline) and the most effective study plan, you can call ClearIAS Mentors at +91-9605741000, +91-9656621000, or +91-9656731000.

Ramji Lal Modi Case( 1957)

A five-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the validity of Section 295(A) in this case.

While Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression for the sake of public order, the Supreme Court reasoned, a more severe type of blasphemy that is done with the intent to outrage the religious sensibilities of any group is punishable under Section 295(A).

Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs Ram Manohar Lohia case (1960)

It was claimed that in order to invoke Section 295(A) of the IPC, a strong linkage must exist between the speech that was spoken and any public disorder that was brought about as a result of it.

In addition, it came to the conclusion in 2011 that only speech that amounted to “incitement to impending unlawful conduct” is punishable.

That is to say, a very high standard must be met before the state can use public disturbance as an excuse to censor expression.

S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram

In this decision, the Court ruled that the right to free speech cannot be restricted unless the situation it creates is one that endangers the community or the public interest, and that threat cannot be imagined, remote, or improbable.

If the expression is taken, there must be a close connection.

Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020)

According to the Supreme Court, “hate speech has no valid or redeeming motive other than hostility for a specific group.”

The Problem of over-criminalization of Hate Speech

In a dramatic and very personal turn of events in 2015, Indian novelist Perumal Murugan declared his creative “death,” pulled the entirety of his published works from circulation, and vowed never to write again.

This resulted from the violent backlash he received from religious and caste-based groups who claimed that his fifth book, “Madhorubagan” in Tamil, or “One Part Woman,” offended religious sensibilities, insulted the Kailasanathar temple, Lord Shiva, and female worshippers, among other allegations.

They also claimed that it appealed to prurient interest, among other things.

A Forward Approach

Many of the legal restrictions on hate speech that are in place today date back to the days before the Internet. Specialized law to control hate speech spread on the Internet and, notably, social media, is urgently needed.

It is possible to make reference to the Australian federal law known as the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 2019, which holds Internet service providers accountable if they know that any obscene or violent content—which is defined to include content that a reasonable man would find offensive—is accessible through the service they provide.

In the context of a “digital single market,” the European Union has also adopted a code of conduct to prevent the spread of hate speech. It calls for cooperative, autonomous, inclusive regulation that adheres to global best practices for content filtering and privacy rights while being tailored to local and cultural norms.

Actions usually performed in response to contemporary hate speech have a whack-a-mole effect, whereby the underlying desire to sow division or hatred among communities endures through digital or social media platforms irrespective arrest of the offenders.

By modifying the IPC and the Information Technology Act, it is crucial to implement precise and long-lasting legislative rules that prevent hate speech, especially that which is spread online and through social media.

In the end, only when hate speech is acknowledged as a justifiable limitation on free expression would this be feasible.

Click here to read more about the 100 Must-Know Acts Enacted by the Indian Parliament.

Article Written By: Jis John Sebastian 

Top 10 Best-Selling ClearIAS Courses

Upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: unbeatable batch 2025 (online), rs.75000   rs.29000, upsc prelims marks booster + 2025 (online), rs.19999   rs.14999, upsc prelims test series (pts) 2025 (online), rs.9999   rs.4999, csat course 2025 (online), current affairs course 2025 (online), ncert foundation course (online), essay writing course for upsc cse (online), ethics course for upsc cse (online), upsc interview marks booster course (online), rs.9999   rs.4999.

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

ClearIAS Programs: Admissions Open

Thank You 🙌

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan

Subscribe ClearIAS YouTube Channel

Get free study materials. Don’t miss ClearIAS updates.

Subscribe Now

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.

Download self-study plan.

Analyse Your Performance and Track Your Progress

Download Study Plan

• Server 3 Live-in Relationship and Evolution of India Jurisprudence  
• Slider 2 US Supreme Court rules against Immigrants with Temporary Status
• slider1 It’s time to define limits of sedition, says Supreme Court

GCAI seeks statuary recognition for General Counsels: Dr.Sanjeev Gemawat meets with Hon’ble Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal

Saraf and Partners Celebrates 3rd Anniversary with Remarkable Growth and Success

Solaris Legal adds Rajat Pradhan as an Associate Partner

Issue of Hate Speech: Law Commission Report No. 267

“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Understanding the term “Hate Speech”

Responsible speech is the essence of the liberty granted under article 21 of the Constitution. One of the greatest challenges before the principle of autonomy and free speech principle is to ensure that this liberty is not exercised to the detriment of any individual or the disadvantaged section of the society. In a country like India, with diverse castes, creed, religions and languages, this issue poses a greater challenge. Under International Human Rights Law, there is no universal definition of hate speech as the concept is still widely disputed with regard to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination, and equality.

According to Merriam Webster dictionary, “ hate speech is a speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people” .

Collins dictionary defines hate speech as “ speech disparaging a group on the grounds of colour, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, or a person who identifies with such a group ”.

As per the oxford dictionary , “ hate speech is speech or writing that attacks or threatens a particular group of people, especially based on race, religion, or sexual orientation ”.

Black’s Law Dictionary has defined it as “ speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence .”

Whereas the Cambridge dictionary describes hate speech as “ public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (the fact of being gay, etc.) .”

the Supreme Court, in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) , described hate speech as “ an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group” and one that “seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.”

To provide a unified framework for the UN system to address the issue globally, the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“ any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factors .”

European Convention on Human Rights : Similarly, Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides reasonable duties and restrictions during the exercise of one’s fundamental right to free speech.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): As per Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, the right of freedom of speech can be regulated in order to honour the rights of others and in the interest of public order, public health or morals.

Article 20(2) of the ICCPR also declares that any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prevented by law.

Recent Developments Around Hate Speech

• Reference from the Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1591 , observed that the issue of hate speech deserves deeper scrutiny by the Law Commission of India and also to consider, if it deems proper, defining the expression hate speech and make recommendations to parliament to strengthen the election commission to curb the menace of hate speech irrespective of whenever made.”
• High case filling rate with a low conviction rate: According to the National Crime Records Bureau data, cases filed under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 153A (promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language) saw almost 500 percent increase between 2014 and 2020. The number of cases from 323 in 2014 raised to 1804 in 2020. On the other hand, the conviction rate of only around 20% in ‘hate speech cases in the year 2020 is almost 1/3rd of the conviction rate of all cognizable IPC crimes. In other words, the conviction rate of ‘hate speech’ related cases is among the lowest of all IPC crimes.

Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech 

Hate speech has not been defined in any law in India. However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech. Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution of India guarantees the right to speech and expression. But there cannot be any right that is injurious to the community as a whole. If people were given complete and absolute liberty without any social control the result would be ruined ( Wills- Constitutional Law and the United States, 477).

Justice Patanjali Shastri in A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1951 SC 21 observed, “ man as a rational being desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by the other individuals .”

The Constitution acknowledges that liberty cannot be absolute or uncontrolled and makes provisions in clauses (2) to (6) of article 19 authorising the State to restrict the exercise of the freedom guaranteed under that article within the limits specified in those clauses. Thus, clause (2) of article 19, as subsequently amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 and the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, enabled the legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interests of (i) the security of the State and sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iii)public order, (iv) decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Legal Provisions of Hate Speech In India

At present India have the following legislations that deal with hate speech, namely:-

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 124A IPC penalises sedition
• Section 153A IPC penalises ‘the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
• Section 153B IPC penalises ‘imputations, and assertions prejudicial to national integration.
• Section 295A IPC penalises ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
• Section 298 IPC penalises ‘uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.
• Section 505(1) and (2) IPC penalise publication or circulation of any statement, rumour, or report causing public mischief and enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes.
• The Representation of the People Act,1951  
• According to Section 8 of the Act, a person shall be disqualified from contesting the election if he is convicted of including in acts amounting to the illegitimate use of freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 123(3A) and section 125 prohibit the promotion of enmity on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language in connection with an election as a corrupt electoral practice and prohibits it.
• The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
• Section 7 penalises incitement to, and encouragement of untouchability through words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise.
• The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act,1988
• Section 3(g) prohibits religious institution or its manager to allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution for promoting or attempting to promote disharmony, feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.  
• The Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995
• Sections 5 and 6 of the Act prohibits transmission or re-transmission of a programme through a cable network in contravention to the prescribed programme code or advertisement code. These codes have been defined in rules 6 and 7 respectively of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994.
• The Cinematography Act, 1952
• Sections 4, 5B, and 7 empower the Board of Film Certification to prohibit and regulate the screening of a film.  
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 95 empowers the State Government, to forfeit publications that are punishable under sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 292, 293, or 295A IPC.
• Section 107 empowers the Executive Magistrate to prevent a person from committing a breach of the peace or disturbing the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably cause a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity.
• Section 144 empowers the District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government on this behalf to issue the order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. The above offences are cognizable. Thus, have serious repercussions on the liberties of citizens and empowers a police officer to arrest without orders from a magistrate and without a warrant as in section 155 CrPC.

Criteria for Hate Speech

Not all types of speeches are hate speech. Only certain types of speeches are presumed to be hated in nature. There are certain parameters through which one can distinguish between speech, discussion, advocacy, and incitement. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523 , had differentiated between three forms of speech, discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It was held by the Court that a speech can only be limited on grounds of exceptions mentioned in article 19(2) when it reaches the threshold of incitement. All other forms of speech, even if offensive or unpopular have to be protected under article 19(1) (a). Incitement is the key to determining the constitutionality of a restriction on free speech.

Many parameters have been developed by the courts of different jurisdictions to identify hate speech. Some of them are summarised s below:

• The extremity of the speech

A speech can be termed hate speech if it is offensive and it projects an extreme form of emotion. The supreme court of the United States in the case chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S 568(1942) held that the expressions of advocacy and discussion of sensitive and unpopular issues have been termed ‘low-value speech’ unqualified for constitutional protection.

The element of incitement to discriminate is the basic factor of hate speech. A speech can be classified as hate speech if it has an intention to incite the public to discriminate the others based on race, caste, gender, religion, etc. the supreme court of India in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India observed that the speech must amount to incitement in order to be restricted.  It is important to mention here that incitement to not only violence but also discrimination has been recognized as a ground for interfering with freedom of expression.

• Status of the author of the speech

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recognized that position of the author of the speech is important in determining the legality of limitations imposed by the State. The Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India AIR 2014 SC 1591 was approached to sanction hate speech. The petitioners sought the court’s intervention to declare “hate speeches” delivered by elected representatives, and political and religious leaders as unconstitutional. The petition was specifically addressed to the people who held power to influence society on a large scale. The Court recognizing the negative impact of hate speech referred the matter to Law Commission for an in-depth examination.

• Status of the victim of the speech

The status of the targeted audience is also important to determine whether the speech can be restricted or not. The limits of acceptable criticism are wider for a politician as such than regard a private individual.  

• Potentiality of the speech

The potentiality of speech and how much impact it has on the minds of the public is also an important element. In Ramesh v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 775 Supreme Court examined the validity of the restriction based on the potential of the movie to impact the audience.

• Context of the speech

  Not all speech is hate speech. The context of the speech determines the permissibility of the speech.

Test For Restraining the Freedom of Speech And Expression

International human rights law developed a three-part test that determines whether a particular type of speech should be curtailed or not. The following standards should be satisfied before curtailing the human right:

• Prescription by law: as per this rule, the restriction imposed must be prescribed by law. The means by which the right is curtailed should be passed through the appropriate procedures and through explicit provisions of the law.
• Legitimate aims: The measure must directly satisfy a legitimate aim.
• Necessity and proportionality: there must be a need for such a measure. The restriction cannot be imposed for any reason. There should be an urgent need to restrict any rights. Also, the restriction must not do any more damage to the right than is necessary to meet its aim.

Judicial Perspective on Hate Speech

The Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004), emphasised the need to sustain communal harmony to ensure the welfare of the people. In the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan case, the Supreme Court pointed out the impact hate speech can have on the targeted group’s ability to respond and how it can be a stimulus to further attacks.  In G. Thirumurugan Gandhi v. State (2019) , the Madras High Court explained that hate speeches cause discord between classes and that the responsibility attached to free speech should not be forgotten.

In Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) , the Supreme Court held that “hate speech has no redeeming or legitimate purpose other than hatred towards a particular group”. In the matter of Arup Bhuyan vs the State of Assam, The Court held that a mere act cannot be punished unless an individual resorted to violence or incited any other person to violence. In the case of S. Rangarajan Etc. vs P. Jagjivan Ram ,  the Court held that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless the situation so created are dangerous to the community/ public interest wherein this danger should not be remote, conjectural, or far-fetched. There should be a proximate and direct nexus with the expression so used.

Non-legal Measures to Tackle Hate Speech

To address the issue of hate speech many non-legal measures should be taken. Some of them are as follows:

• Television dramas that promote harmony between warring communities should be promoted.
• The religious heads should be involved to build empathy across religions so that the social tension can be reduced.
• Strategic interventions should be made by the government especially in the context of social media so that the dissemination of hate speech and mob mobilisation can be monitored.
• To aware people to stop spreading harmful rumours.

India is culturally rich country. Any attempt to allow hate speech can marginalise classes and groups of persons who are already in a minority due to their race, language, and religion. The already existing laws are not sufficient to deal with instances of hate speech. The law commission in its 267th report made recommendations for provisions for prohibiting incitement of hate speech and prohibiting causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence through such speech. The report was published in the year 2017 although no development so far.  The idea of criminalization of hate speech and how the existing laws look at it needs attention for bringing the right change. Since it is entrenched in the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression, “hate speech” has been manipulated by many in different ways to achieve their ulterior motive under the garb of such right and the law courts in absence of clear provisions in IPC, are not able to prosecute hate speech charges brought before them with success. There is no general legal definition of hate speech. The law in this regard is awaiting development.

About the author

CHIRAYU SHARMA

Joint Secretary, Student Research & Reporting Board

You may also like

On adverse possession of land, no need to change the law, recommends Law Commission

International Perspective on Laws related to Miscarriage of Justice and Position in India: Law Commission Report 277

Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies:Law Commission Report no. 277

Sections of website.

• Acts of Parliament 71
• BAR COUNCILS & COURTS 6
• BILLS/LAWS 11
• CALL AND CONFERENCE 98
• CALL FOR PAPERS 38
• CITIZEN CONNECT 31
• COMMERCIAL LAW 1
• COMMITTEES 1
• COMPANY LAW 1
• COMPETITON LAW 8
• CONFERENCE 45
• CONFERENCE AND OTHER EVENTS 125
• CORPORATE LEGAL PRACTICE 123
• ENVIRONMENT 10
• FAMILY & PROPERTY LAW 4
• GUEST AUTHOR 13
• HALL OF FAME 13
• HEALTH & EDUCATION 2
• IN THE NEWS 302
• INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 7
• INTERSHIPS & OPPORTUNTIES 53
• LATEST UPDATES 362
• LAW BOOKS 12
• LAW COLLEGES 15
• LAW COMMISSION 7
• LAW EXAMS 11
• LAW FIRMS 51
• LAW LIBRARY 18
• LEGAL LUMINARIES 11
• LEGAL QUERIES 4
• LEGAL SYSTEM UPDATE 91
• MINISTRY FOR COMMITTEE AND REPORTS 16
• NATIONAL 32
• NOTIFICATIONS 58
• PHOTO GALLERY 108
• PRESS RELEASE 78
• PUBLICATIONS OF ILW 1
• RECENT AMENDMENTS 2
• STATE LAW UPDATES 283
• STUDENTS CORNER 57
• STUDENTS HALL OD FAME 1
• SUPREME COURT UPDATES 376
• SURVEY OF ILW 1
• TECHNOLOGY & COMMUNICATION 2
• TRAININGS 23
• UNCATEGORIZED 49

| Socio-Legal Review

National law school of india university, bengaluru       issn no.: 0973-5216.

• Aug 10, 2017

Unpacking the Law Commission's Hate Speech Report

- Siddharth Narrain*

Introduction

The 267th Law Commission Report on Hate Speech, recently submitted to the Law Ministry, is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it has, for the first time, analysed hate speech in a detailed manner, focusing on global jurisprudence, Indian law, and putting forward a strong and reasoned argument on why hate speech should be regulated. On the other hand, its recommendations have a very narrow focus, suggesting criminal law amendments, specifically the introduction of new provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and amendments to their corresponding provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). A number of legal commentators [1] have already responded to the amendments, raising important concerns on how the laws proposed by the Commission if enacted, will lower existing standards and free speech protections laid down by courts, and may be used to curb legitimate speech and dissent.

While I agree with these concerns, given the rampant misuse of existing IPC provisions such as sections 153A and 295A to target dissent and creative expression, I will focus on the main text of the report, which, in its attempt to reconcile concerns around liberty, equality, free speech and discrimination, puts forward very important legal distinctions that all of us must engage with.

Origins of the Report

The Law Commission’s Hate Speech report has its origins in the Supreme Court’s 2014 Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan judgment, [2] a case dealing with speech that targeted interstate migrant workers. The Supreme Court in that case observed that India had enough laws to deal with the issue at hand, but the problem was the non-implementation of these laws. The Court suggested that the Law Commission look into the matter, and specifically suggested that the Law Commission study the issue of hate speech in the lead up to elections, to enable the Election Commission to deal with this issue. The present Law Commission, headed by Justice B.S. Chauhan, one of the judges who authored the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan judgment, took up this matter on priority, and has come up with this detailed report.

Findings and Recommendations of the Report

The most important aspect of the 267th Law Commission Report on Hate Speech is that it goes into a detailed discussion on hate speech itself, a theme that has not been discussed much in Indian legal texts. The Commission draws upon academic legal writing in India and in comparative jurisdictions to lay out a map of the global debates around hate speech, the range of existing Indian laws that could be understood as hate speech laws, and the underlying tension between the right to liberty and the right to equality when it comes to legislating hate speech.

The Commission lists a number of laws that would broadly have a bearing on hate speech. These include provisions from the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the Representation of People’s Act 1951, The Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, The Religious Institution (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1988, The Cable Television Network Regulation Act 1995, and The Cinematograph Act 1952.

Crucially, the Commission lays down a framework for the principles that need to be applied while dealing with hate speech, drawing upon developments in European and international law. The Commission stresses on the three-part test – 1) Is the interference prescribed by law? 2) Is the interference proportional to the legitimate aim pursued? 3) Is the interference necessary in a democratic society? These principles of necessity, proportionality and the requirement of limitations to free speech being prescribed by law and having a legitimate aim, underlie the ICCPR understanding of the freedom of speech, and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

Along with this, the Commission also draws upon international developments to lay down the parameters that need to be taken into account while considering whether speech amounts to hate speech or not. These include how extreme the speech is; the requirement of incitement; the status of the author of the speech; the status of the victim of the speech; the potentiality and context of the speech. Perhaps, the most important of these parameters is the emphasis on the incitement standard, which the Commission endorses strongly. The Commission cites both the Supreme Court decisions in Shreya Singhal , [3] which in the context of online speech, distinguished between ‘discussion’, ‘advocacy’, and ‘incitement’, and in Arup Bhuyan [4] where the court held that mere membership of a banned organisation is not sufficient to impute criminality and that it has to be shown that the person incited violence or created public disorder.

The Legal Distinctions

While the Commission recommends that elements of intent and incitement must be included in any formulation of hate speech legislation, it distinguishes between incitement to violence, and incitement to discrimination, recognising both of these as factors that contribute to identifying hate speech. According to the Commission, even if speech does not incite violence, but perpetrates discriminatory attitudes it could amount to hate speech. This move has been justified by the Commission’s view that liberty and equality are complementary and not antithetical to each other. The Commission draws on the work of legal scholars such as Jeremy Waldron, who have argued that while purely offensive speech or hurt sentiments should not be regulated, there is a class of speech amounting to more than just hurt sentiments but less than actual physical injury that should be regulated in democracies. This category is speech that impacts the dignity of groups, undermining the implicit assurance that citizens of a democracy, especially politically disenfranchised minorities and vulnerable groups are placed on the same footing as the majority. [5]

The example Commission uses to illustrate this is the exodus of around 50,000 persons belonging to the North East from cities such as Bengaluru and Pune in 2012. This exodus was the result of threatening SMSs, MMSs circulated at the time, and stray attacks on persons belonging to the North East in these cities. The Commission, however does not do justice to this example, and has not delved upon the specificities of speech on the internet, especially when it seems to be suggesting a broader understanding of incitement than the Shreya Singhal standard. There is a growing jurisprudence and global discussion around hate speech online, including the link to issues of intermediary liability, jurisdiction, and techno-legal developments, all of which would require a separate discussion, and could not possibly be covered in a general discussion on hate speech.

The internet and social media apart, the Commission is making an important intervention around the incitement to discrimination standard for hate speech. In his book, The Harm in Hate Speech Laws , [6] Waldron uses a telling illustration. He asks the reader to imagine a situation where a Muslim family in the United States, post the 9/11 attack, steps out of their home to see large billboards all over the city that are talk about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, or is Islamophobic. Recent reports of billboards that are being put up in cities in Uttar Pradesh, warning Rohingya and Bangladeshi refugees to leave Jammu [7] or posters that appeared in a village in Bareilly district after the election results in the state asking Muslims to leave the area, [8] clearly show us that far from being an exceptional situation, is fast becoming the new normal. The tension here is between the criminalisation of a swathe of speech in a situation where hurt sentiment and offensive speech are constantly produced by various local actors, [9] and protecting the rights of vulnerable communities, ensuring that they are not scared into silence on the pretext of free speech.

The move to the incitement to discrimination standard is reflected in the framing of the proposed sections 153(C) and 505 (A) IPC, where the first part of the sections reflect an incitement to discrimination standard, and the second part reflect an incitement to violence standard. [10] By suggesting an incitement to discrimination standard in the context of online speech, the Commission fails to do is to address the specificities of the Indian context. There is only a passing reference to the gross misuse of the existing provisions of law such as sections 153A and 295A IPC to curb dissent and artistic license. For those who have followed the manner in which these laws have been used to drag people to court, and silence actors through the threat of litigation, this is a glaring omission. One of the main concerns of free speech advocates has been how to institute more procedural safeguards to protect speech. This concern is reflected in the Bombay High Court’s decision in the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi’s case [11] where the court suggested that certain safeguards be instituted to prevent the sedition law (section 124A IPC) from being misused. [12]

The amendments to the IPC that have been suggested in the report have expanded on the categories covered by the law, in line with a contemporary understanding of hate speech, including hate speech based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. By doing this, the Commission has positioned these amendments as in tune with global developments on this front. However, this does not address the worry that these amendments, by themselves, will be unable to address the problem of hate speech, as the use of the law will be determined by those in power, and by political calculations.

We know for instance that the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath faces a number of hate speech charges including a provocative speech in January 2007 that was followed by incidents of communal violence. [13] (at the time was an elected MP from Gorakhpur). Now that he is Chief Minister a file seeking sanction for prosecution in a hate speech case against Adityanath has to be cleared by his government. [14] Meanwhile critics of the Chief Minister, who have made comments, or posted morphed images of him online, who are being charged with the same set of laws, by the Uttar Pradesh police. [15]

It is the dark irony of this situation that underlies my serious doubts on whether the amendments to the penal law suggested by the Commission were warranted, or can be viewed as a positive development. After all, hate speech laws are designed to be invoked by the government in power against those who violate the law, but the question is what happens when hate speech has the tacit support of those in power, or if it is the government itself that is producing hate speech?

*Siddharth Narrain is a Visiting Faculty at the School of Law, Governance and Citizenship, Ambedkar University, Delhi. He can be contacted at [email protected].

[1] See for instance, Aman Lekhi, The Law Commission’s Curious Recommendations on Hate Speech , Bloomberg Quint (April 08 2017), https://www.bloombergquint.com/opinion/2017/04/08/the-law-commissions-curious-recommendations-on-hate-speech; CCG, NLU Delhi, Reviewing the Law Commission’s Latest Hate Speech Recommendations , Legally India (14 April 2017), http://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/reviewing-the-law-commission-s-latest-hate-speech-recommendations; Aditya Bapat, The Law Commission’s Recommendations on Hate Speech: Be Fearful and Alarmed , The Huffington Post (12 April 2017), http://www.huffingtonpost.in/aditya-bapat/the-law-commissions-recommendations-on-hate-speech-be-fearful-a/.

[2] Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1591.

[3] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.

[4] Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377.

[5] Law Commission of India, Report No. 267, Hate Speech 16 (March 2017).

[6] Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (2012).

[7] Ashutosh Sharma, Quit Jammu: Billboards Target Rohingya, Bangladeshi Refugees , National Herald (7 February 2017), http://www.nationalheraldindia.com/news/2017/02/07/quit-jammu-billboards-target-rohingya-bangladeshi-refugees-to-throw-out-rohingyas-settled-for-decade-and-more.

[8] In This U.P. Village, Posters appeared Overnight asking Muslims to Leave , Huffington Post , 16 March 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/03/16/in-a-village-in-uttar-pradesh-posters-ask-muslims-to-leave-the_a_21897281/.

[9] William Mazzarella and Raminder Kaur, Censorship in South Asia: Cultural Regulation From Sedition to Seduction (2009).

[10] Prohibiting incitsement to hatred-

"153 C. Whoever on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe -

1. (a) uses gravely threatening words either spoken or written, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause, fear or alarm; or

2. (b) advocates hatred by words either spoken or written, signs, visible representations, that causes incitement to violence

shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and fine up to Rs 5000, or with both.".

3. Insertion of new section after section 505. - In the Penal Code, after section 505, the following section shall be inserted, namely:- Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases.

"505 A. Whoever in public intentionally on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe-

uses words, or displays any writing, sign, or other visible representation which is gravely threatening, or derogatory;

(i) within the hearing or sight of a person, causing fear or alarm, or;

(ii) with the intent to provoke the use of unlawful violence,

against that person or another, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and/or fine up to Rs 5000, or both".

[11] Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 CriLJ 3561.

[12] The Law Commission’s report clearly distinguishes between hate speech and sedition as two distinct spheres, which is important since these two categories are often collapsed in public discussion. While both these laws do have a common history, hate speech has to do with speech targeting other persons or communities while sedition deals with the citizen’s relationship with the state.

[13] Shahnawaz Alam , How the SP and BSP helped Yogi Adityanath get away with his hate speeches , Business Standard (30 March 2017), http://www.business-standard.com/elections/uttar-pradesh-assembly-elections-2017/how-sp-and-bsp-helped-yogi-adityanath-get-away-with-his-hate-speeches-117033000148_1.html.

[14] Maulshree Seth, On Yogi Govt Table, File on Yogi hate speech case , Indian Express (23 March 2017), http://indianexpress.com/article/india/yogi-adityanath-uttar-pradesh-govt-table-file-on-yogi-hate-speech-case-orakhpur-radhamohan-das-agarwal-4581333/.

[15] Vinit, 22-Year Old Arrested in Noida for Facebook Post on Yogi Adityanath , Hindustan Times (24 March 2017), http://www.hindustantimes.com/noida/22-year-old-arrested-in-greater-noida-for-facebook-post-on-uttar-pradesh-cm-adityanath/story-mT44NjypbLGuTLYCu3oirM.html.

• Constitutional Law
• Criminal Law

Recent Posts

Curtailing Freedom of Choice: The Implication of Mandating Parental Signatures for Registering Love Marriages

The Constitutionality of the Manipur Internet Shutdown

Rescuing Duty From Fundamentalism: An Ambedkarite Re-Imagining of Part IV-A of the Constitution

• OUR CENTERS Bangalore Delhi Lucknow Mysuru --> Srinagar Dharwad Hyderabad

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2024
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology

Hate Speech:

GS Paper 3:

Topics Covered : Challenges to internal security through communication networks, role of media and social networking sites in internal security challenges, basics of cyber security; money-laundering and its prevention.

Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu has said that hate speech should not be made against any community, be it minority or majority.

What’s the issue?

Concerns have been raised over concerted events in the recent past that targeted political, social and economic exclusion of Muslims through a series of rallies and hate speeches . Journalists too were attacked.

What is Hate Speech?

Hate speech is an incitement to hatred against a particular group of persons marginalized by their religious belief, sexual orientation, gender, and so on.

• The Law Commission, in its 267th report on hate speech, said such utterances have the potential to provoke individuals and society to commit acts of terrorism, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.

Why Hate Speech Must be curbed?

• Internal Security: The Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013 was triggered by a fake video that incited communal passions.
• Igniting extremist sentiments.
• Mob lynching.
• Misinformation and disinformation: Delhi Riots.
• The world’s biggest social media companies, including Facebook, Google, Twitter and ByteDance, are exploring an industry-wide alliance to curb fake news on their platforms in India.
• The Election Commission of India must tie up with tech companies to identify the creator of such news.
• Educating the end-users.
• The government should bring out a policy framework on the possible harm due to the internet messaging platforms to engage at a deeper level.
• Imposing hefty fines, like in Germany the Social media companies face fines of up to €50m if they persistently fail to remove illegal content from their sites.

Need of the hour:

• Hate speech is a discursive process of pushing marginalised groups outside of social, economic and political spheres of society by disseminating hate propaganda and encouraging discrimination. At its most harmful, it is widely recognized as a precursor to ethnic cleansing.
• Public authorities must be held accountable for dereliction of the duty of care and also for non-compliance with this court’s orders by not taking action to prevent vigilante groups from inciting communal disharmony and spreading hate against citizens of the country and taking the laws into their own hands.

Provisions regarding Hate Speech:

Section 153A IPC penalises ‘promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’.

Section 153B IPC penalises ‘imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration’.

Section 295A IPC penalises ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs’.

Section 298 IPC penalises ‘uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person’.

Section 505 IPC penalises publication or circulation of any statement, rumour or report causing public mischief and enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.

Part VII of the Representation of People Act, 1951 classifies hate speech as an offence committed during elections into two categories: corrupt practices and electoral offences.

Various Committees and their Views:

T.K. Viswanathan Committee:

• It submitted a report recommending stricter laws to curb online hate speech and use of cyberspace to spread hatred and incitement.
• It proposed inserting Sections 153 C (b) and Section 505 A in the IPC for incitement to commit an offence on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe.

Bezbaruah committee:

• It was constituted by the Centre in 2014 in the wake of a series of racial attacks on persons belonging to the northeast.
• It had proposed to insert two stricter anti-racial discrimination provisions in the IPC.

Insta Curious:

In a 2020 Supreme Court decision in Amish Devgun case , hate speech was linked to the violation of unity and fraternity and breach of human dignity, which constitutes an essential facet of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution .

InstaLinks:

Prelims Link:

• About Information Technology Act.
• Section 66A of the Act.
• About the Law Commission of India.
• Regulation of Hate speech under IT Act.

Mains Link:

What is Hate speech? How it should be curbed? Discuss.

Sources: the Hindu

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy

Hate Speech - UPSC Notes

Hate speech is a term frequently seen in the daily news. It is important to understand the meaning of the term and its implications for Indian polity and society. In this article, you can read all about the term ‘hate speech’ and the legalities involved in it, for the  UPSC 2023 .

Hate Speech:- Download PDF Here

Aspirants would find this article very helpful while preparing for the  IAS Exam .

Hate Speech Meaning

Hate speech refers to words whose intent is to create hatred towards a particular group, that group may be a community, religion or race. This speech may or may not have meaning, but is likely to result in violence.

• The primary reason for the propagation of hate speech by individuals is that they believe in stereotypes that are ingrained in their minds and these stereotypes lead them to believe that a class or group of persons are inferior to them and as such cannot have the same rights as them.
• The stubbornness to stick to a particular ideology without caring for the right to co-exist peacefully adds further fuel to the fire of hate speech.
• In order to determine whether a particular instance of speech is a hate speech or not, the context of the speech plays an important role.
• The Court in the State of Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damodar Rupawat observed that the effect of the words used in the offending material must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.
• The existence of hate speech is not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination but the creation of multiple platforms, especially social media has led to hate speech not only increasing but also becoming more vile and abhorrent.
• The amount of hate that is perpetuated through social media platforms like Facebook has been well documented.
• The most prominent instance in this regard has been the persecution of Rohingya Muslims by Myanmar’s military junta.
• Multiple investigative journalists have laid bare the connection between the call for violence against Rohingyas on Facebook and the unabashed killings in Myanmar.

Hate Speech – Position in India

Freedom of Speech and Expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution as a fundamental right but this right is not absolute and as such restrictions are imposed on this right under Article 19(2).

• It has to be understood that the right to free speech ends where hate speech begins.
• Under the pretext of exercising inherent rights, many commit the crime of hate speech, leading to an air of distrust and terror.
• It must be appreciated that liberty is there for all. If in the name of free speech, a ‘hate speech’ is delivered which marginalises certain people, then the liberty of those people is snatched away.
• In the 267th Report of the Law Commission of India, it was stated that “Liberty and equality are contemporary and not antithetical to each other. The intention of having the freedom of speech is not to disregard the weaker sections of society but to give them an equal voice. The intent of equality is not to restrain this liberty but to balance it with the necessities of a multicultural and plural world, provided such constraint does not unduly infringe on the freedom of expression. Thus, incitement to not only violence but also to discrimination has been recognized as a ground for interfering with freedom of expression.”

Aspirants can go through the relevant links given below for their exam preparation-

The penal provisions which relate to this aspect are as follows:

• Sections 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) punish acts that cause enmity and hatred between two groups.
• Section 295A of the IPC deal with punishing acts which deliberately or with malicious intention outrage the religious feelings of a class of persons.
• Sections 505(1) and 505(2) make the publication and circulation of content which may cause ill-will or hatred between different groups an offence.
• Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA)  prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
• Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA bar the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and includes it under corrupt electoral practices.

FAQ about Hate Speech

Is hate speech free speech in india, give examples of hate speech..

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

• TRP for UPSC Personality Test
• Interview Mentorship Programme – 2023
• Daily News & Analysis
• Daily Current Affairs Quiz
• Baba’s Explainer
• Dedicated TLP Portal
• 60 Day – Rapid Revision (RaRe) Series – 2024
• English Magazines
• Hindi Magazines
• Yojana & Kurukshetra Gist
• Gurukul Foundation
• Gurukul Foundation – Delhi
• Gurukul Advanced
• TLP Connect – 2025
• TLP (+) Plus – 2025
• Integrated Learning Program (ILP) – 2025
• MAINS PYQs Mastery
• TLP Plus – 2024
• Sociology Foundation Course – 2025
• Sociology Test Series – 2024 (Coming Soon!)
• Public Administration FC – 2024
• Anthropology Foundation Course
• Anthropology Optional Test Series (Coming Soon!)
• Geography Optional Foundation Course
• Geography Optional Test Series – Coming Soon!
• PSIR Foundation Course
• PSIR Test Series – Coming Soon
• ‘Mission ಸಂಕಲ್ಪ’ – KPSC Foundation Course
• ‘Mission ಸಂಕಲ್ಪ’ – KPSC Prelims Crash Course
• Monthly Magazine

Hate Speech

• January 17, 2022

UPSC Articles

GOVERNANCE/ RIGHTS

• GS-2: Fundamental Rights

Context : A recent religious conclave held in Haridwar witnessed inflammatory and provocative speeches by proponents of Hindutva, many of them leaders of religious organisations. 

• Reports say many of the speakers called for organised violence against Muslims and hinted at a Myanmar-type ‘cleansing campaign’. 
• Political parties and concerned citizens have termed these as ‘hate speech’ and demanded legal action against those involved in the propagation of hate and violence.

What is ‘hate speech’?

• There is no specific legal definition of ‘hate speech’.
• Provisions in law criminalise speeches, writings, actions, signs and representations that foment violence and spread disharmony between communities and groups and these are understood to refer to ‘hate speech’.
• The Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report, says: “Hate speech generally is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like … Thus, hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.”
• In general, hate speech is considered a limitation on free speech that seeks to prevent or bar speech that exposes a person or a group or section of society to hate, violence, ridicule or indignity.

How is it treated in Indian law?

• Sections 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are generally taken to be the main penal provisions that deal with inflammatory speeches and expressions that seek to punish ‘hate speech’.
• Under Section 153A, ‘promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’, is an offence punishable with three years’ imprisonment. It attracts a five-year term if committed in a place of worship, or an assembly engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies.
• Section 505 of IPC makes it an offence to making “statements conducing to public mischief”. Under subsection (3), the same offence will attract up to a five-year jail term if it takes place in a place of worship, or in any assembly engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies.

What has the Law Commission proposed?

• The Law Commission has proposed that separate offences be added to the IPC to criminalise hate speech quite specifically instead of being subsumed in the existing sections concerning inflammatory acts and speeches. 
• It has proposed that two new sections, Section 153C and Section 505A, be added.
• Its draft says Section 153C should make it an offence if anyone (a) uses gravely threatening words, spoken or written or signs or visible representations, with the intention to cause fear or alarm; or (b) advocates hatred that causes incitement to violence, on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe. It proposes a two-year jail term for this and/or a fine of ₹5,000 or both.
• Its draft for Section 505A proposes to criminalise words, or display of writing or signs that are gravely threatening or derogatory, within the hearing or sight of a person, causing fear or alarm or, with intent to provoke the use of unlawful violence against that person or another”. It proposes a prison term of up to one year and/or a fine up to ₹5,000 or both.
• Similar proposals to add sections to the IPC to punish acts and statements that promote racial discrimination or amount to hate speech have been made by the M.P. Bezbaruah Committee and the T.K. Viswanathan Committee . 
• At present, the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws, which is considering more comprehensive changes to criminal law, is examining the issue of having specific provisions to tackle hate speech.

For a dedicated peer group, Motivation & Quick updates, Join our official telegram channel – https://t.me/IASbabaOfficialAccount

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE to watch Explainer Videos, Strategy Sessions, Toppers Talks & many more…

Related Posts :

A star with a heartbeat & without a magnetic field discovered , forest restoration in the net zero race.

• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC प्रारंभिक एवं मुख्य परीक्षा – 25th July 2024
• [New Batch] Baba’s GURUKUL FOUNDATION Classroom Programme for Freshers’ – UPSC/IAS 2025 – Limited to 75 Students in a Batch – OFFLINE in Delhi. Starts 12th August
• UPSC Quiz – 2024 : IASbaba’s Daily Current Affairs Quiz 26th July 2024
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam – 26th July 2024
• IASbaba’s TLP 2024 (Phase 2): UPSC Mains Answer Writing – Essay Questions [26th July, 2024] – Day 33
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam – 25th July 2024
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC प्रारंभिक एवं मुख्य परीक्षा – 24th July 2024
• UPSC Quiz – 2024 : IASbaba’s Daily Current Affairs Quiz 25th July 2024
• DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam – 24th July 2024
• IASbaba’s TLP 2024 (Phase 2): UPSC Mains Answer Writing – Essay Questions [25th July, 2024] – Day 32

Don’t lose out on any important Post and Update. Learn everyday with Experts!!

Email Address

Search now.....

Sign up to receive regular updates.

Sign Up Now !

• Daily Practice Sheets
• Daily Prelims Notes
• Prelims Power Play
• Mains Factly
• Sunday Essay Sadhna
• Laqshya 2025
• ARJUNA PRIME 2025
• Daily Answer Writing
• Mains Master Notes
• Important Topics List for Prelims 2024
• Daily Prelims Notes Compilation
• Daily Practice Sheet Compilation
• PPP Compilation
• General Studies Notes
• UPSC Mains Previous Year Papers
• Portal Login

Hate Speech

• January 2, 2022
• Posted by: OptimizeIAS Team
• Category: DPN Topics

Subject – Polity

Context – A recent religious conclave held in Haridwar witnessed inflammatory and provocative speeches by proponents of Hindutva, many of them leaders of religious organisations

• There is no specific legal definition of ‘hate speech’ .
• Provisions in law criminalise speeches, writings, actions, signs and representations that foment violence and spread disharmony between communities and groups and these are understood to refer to ‘hate speech’.
• Thus, hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.”
• In general, hate speech is considered a limitation on free speech that seeks to prevent or bar speech that exposes a person or a group or section of society to hate, violence, ridicule or indignity.
• Sections 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are generally taken to be the main penal provisions that deal with inflammatory speeches and expressions that seek to punish ‘hate speech’.
• The Law Commission has proposed that separate offences be added to the IPC to criminalise hate speech quite specifically instead of being subsumed in the existing sections concerning inflammatory acts and speeches.
• Similar proposals to add sections to the IPC to punish acts and statements that promote racial discrimination or amount to hate speech have been made by the P. Bezbaruah Committee and the T.K. Viswanathan Committee .
• At present, the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws , which is considering more comprehensive changes to criminal law, is examining the issue of having specific provisions to tackle hate speech.

General Studies

All Programmes

Study Material

Hate Speech in India

What’s in today’s article?

Why in news, about hate speech, article 19 and hate speech, legal provisions of hate speech, important judgements, guidelines issued by supreme court to curb misuse of legal provisions w.r.t. hate speech, suggestions, news summary.

• Two-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that defining hate speech is complex but the real problem in tackling hate speech lies in the implementation and execution of law and judicial pronouncements.

• Hate speech covers many forms of expressions which advocate, incite, promote or justify hatred, violence and discrimination against a person or group of persons for a variety of reasons.
• It poses grave dangers for the cohesion of a democratic society, the protection of human rights and the rule of law.
• If left unaddressed, it can lead to acts of violence and conflict on a wider scale.
• In this sense hate speech is an extreme form of intolerance which contributes to hate crime.
• Article 19(2) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens of India .
• This article is subjected to certain restrictions, namely, 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.
• Provisions in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 authorizes the State to restrict the exercise of the freedom guaranteed under the article .
• Hate speech has not been defined in any law in India .
• However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech.
• Under Section 153A of IPC , ‘ promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’, is an offence punishable with three years’ imprisonment .
• Section 505 of IPC makes it an offence to making “statements conducing to public mischief”.
• Section 8 disqualifies a person from contesting election if he is convicted for indulging in acts amounting to illegitimate use of freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 7 penalizes incitement to, and encouragement of untouchability through words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise.
• Section 3(g) prohibits religious institution or its manager to allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution for promoting or attempting to promote disharmony, feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.
• In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India , the Supreme Court held that the implementation of existing laws would solve the problem of hate speech to a great extent .
• However, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution regarding speeches delivered during election campaign does not qualify as public interest litigation and that the Court cannot legislate on matters where the legislative intent is visible.
• In Tahseen Poonawalla vs Union of India (2018) , the Supreme Court had issued comprehensive guidelines to the Union and State Governments regarding prevention of mob violence, lynching.
• Again, in Kodungallur Film Society case (2018) , directions were issued to control vandalism by protesting mobs.
• Fast-tracked trials,
• Victim compensation,
• Deterrent punishment,
• Disciplinary action against lax law-enforcing officials,
• Nodal officers to be appointed to take note of hate crimes and register FIRs across the nation.
• The Law Commission has proposed that separate offences be added to the IPC to criminalize hate speech more specifically instead of being subsumed in the existing sections concerning inflammatory acts and speeches.
• Similar proposals to add sections to the IPC to punish acts and statements that promote racial discrimination or amount to hate speech have been made by the M.P. Bezbaruah Committee and the T.K. Viswanathan Committee .
• At present, the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws , which is considering more comprehensive changes to criminal law, is examining the issue of having specific provisions to tackle hate speech.
• A bench of the Supreme Court was hearing a plea against the rallies being organized by Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal in Delhi-NCR region over the communal clashes in Haryana along with other petitions against hate speeches.
• The Court observed that defining hate speech is complex but the real problem in tackling them lies in the implementation and execution of law and judicial pronouncements.
• The bench told the petitioner that a solution to hate speeches can be found through collective efforts alone.
• The bench said that the Supreme Court has specified what hate speech is in the 2018 verdict in Tehseen Poonawalla case and no one can justify hate speech against any community .
• The bench said there should be a mechanism so that no one has come to the Supreme Court time and again.

Q1) When did IPC come into force?

The objective of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is to provide a general penal code for India. It was enacted on 6 October 1860 . It was drafted by the first Law Commission which was chaired by Thomas Babington Macaulay .

Q2)  Is Fundamental Right under Article 19 available to non-citizens in India?

The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, and 30 are available only to citizens of India.

Source:   Definition of hate speech complex, real problem is implementation and execution of law: SC

© 2024 Vajiram & Ravi. All rights reserved

• भाषा : हिंदी
• Classroom Courses
• Our Selections
• Student Login
• About NEXT IAS
• Director’s Desk
• Advisory Panel
• Faculty Panel
• General Studies Courses
• Optional Courses
• Interview Guidance Program
• Postal Courses
• Test Series
• Current Affairs
• Student Portal

• Recently, the Supreme Court reprimanded the government for its failure to stop hate speech and hate crimes in the country.

What is Hate Speech?

• Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by any individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a particular individual or group.

Reasons to Curb Hate Speech

• It undermines social equality as it reaffirms historical marginalization, oppression & discrimination .
• It is enacted to cause psychological and physical harm to its victims as it incites violence.
• It is used to provoke individuals or society to commit acts of terrorism, genocides, ethnic cleansing etc.
• It is a tool to create panic through rumour mongering against targeted people . For example, the Northeast exodus.

Laws and regulations on hate speech

• Section 153A : It deals with actions promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. 
• Section 295A : It deals with deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
• Section 505: It pertains to statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes)
• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): It provides for the arrest of individuals who have committed a cognizable offense, such as hate speech.
• Indian Information Technology (IT) Act: It r egulates online speech, including hate speech. Under the act, intermediaries such as social media platforms are required to remove content that is in violation of the law within 36 hours of being notified.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):  The court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which had criminalized online speech, stating that it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression. 
• Sukumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) : The court held that hate speech on social media platforms is not protected by the right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 8: It prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
• Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA: It bars the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and includes it under corrupt electoral practices.
• Freedom of speech: The right to freedom of speech is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution but it is not absolute and can be limited in certain circumstances, such as when it incites violence or discrimination.
• Online Hate speech : The i nternet has made it easier for hate speech to spread, and many social media platforms have policies in place to address hate speech on their platforms. However, the effectiveness of these policies can be limited , and more needs to be done to combat online hate speech.
• Prevention: It begins with education, raising awareness about the harmful effects of hate speech and promoting tolerance and inclusivity. In this regard, the government, civil society organizations and communities at large can play a role in preventing hate speech.

Challenges to Hate speech:

• Defining hate speech: There is no universally accepted definition of hate speech, and different countries and cultures have different norms and expectations in this area. This makes it difficult to establish clear guidelines for what constitutes hate speech and what does not.
• Balancing free speech and hate speech: Hate speech laws are often viewed as a restriction on free speech. This can lead to legal challenges and pushback from civil liberties groups.
• Identifying and removing hate speech online: The vast majority of hate speech takes place online, and it can be difficult to identify and remove this content. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have struggled to effectively moderate hate speech, and there is no consensus on how to approach this problem.
• Addressing hate speech in non-English languages: Hate speech is not limited to English-speaking countries, and it can be difficult to identify and remove hate speech in other languages. Additionally, cultural and linguistic nuances may not be well understood by those trying to moderate content.
• Addressing hate speech by public figures and politicians: Expression of hate is not limited to anonymous internet users, public figures and politicians also contribute to spreading hate speech. However, due to their public platform, it may be challenging to hold them accountable for their statements.
• Lack of resources and legal framework: Many countries lack the resources and legal framework to effectively address hate speech. This can make it difficult to enforce laws and regulations, and it can also create a sense of impunity for those who engage in hate speech.
• India has a diverse population with different languages, religions, and cultures, thus there is a need to curb  incidents of hate speech and crimes that can have a detrimental impact on individuals and communities. 
• It is a complex and multifaceted issue that poses significant challenges for regulators and policymakers which will require a multifaceted approach that includes education, technology, and legal enforcement.
• Thus, it becomes important for governments, civil society organizations, and individuals to work together to combat hate speech and promote a more inclusive and tolerant society.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Daily current affairs 26-07-2024, daily current affairs 25-07-2024, daily current affairs 24-07-2024, india’s space economy.

Next Generation Institute for UPSC Civil Services Examination Preparation.

• Video Gallery
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• UPSC CSE Posts
• Testimonials

NEXT IAS (Delhi)

Old rajinder nagar.

• 27-B, Pusa Road, Metro Pillar no.118, Near Karol Bagh Metro, New Delhi-110060

Mukherjee Nagar

• 1422, Main Mukherjee Nagar Road. Near Batra Cinema New Delhi-110009

NEXT IAS (Jaipur)

• NEXT IAS - Plot No - 6 & 7, 3rd Floor, Sree Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Above Zudio Showroom Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302015

NEXT IAS (Prayagraj)

• 31/31, Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh - 211001

NEXT IAS (Bhopal)

• Plot No. 46 Zone - 2 M.P Nagar Bhopal - 462011
• 8827664612 ,

Recommendations of Law Commission against Hate Speech

The Law Commission of India (LCI) in its 267th Report has laid out that bare the danger of hate speech to the Union Government and called for action from the government and Parliament. It held that hate speech has the potential to provoke individuals and society to commit acts of genocides, terrorism and ethnic cleansing. The Supreme Court of India in 2014 had referred to the Law Commission for means to arm the Election Commission to crack down on hate speech.

• In its report, the commission has cautioned the government that hate speech is considered outside the realm of protective discourse and has urged for the expansion of the penal law against hate crimes.
• It held that indisputably, offensive hate speech has real and devastating effects on people’s lives and risks their health and safety.
• It is also harmful and divisive for communities and hampers social progress. If left unchecked, it can severely affect right to life of every individual.

Law against Hate Speech

• The commission also has drafted a new law The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2017 by inserting new Sections to fortify democracy against hate speeches.
• The law defined hate speech as any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.
• Its Section 153C penalises incitement to hatred and Section 505A for the first time makes ‘causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases’ a specific criminal offence.
• Section 153C calls for punishing guilty person with two years’ imprisonment or Rs. 5,000 in fine or both. Section 505A provides a punishment of one year imprisonment or Rs. 5,000 in fine or both.

Related Posts

Law Commission Report Recommends Epidemic Plan and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

Adverse Possession

Law Commission’s Report on Sedition Law

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Inauguration of New Parliament Building

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution

“Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs Union of India & Ors” Case

Month:   Current Affairs - March, 2017

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Civilsdaily

No. 1 UPSC IAS Platform for preparation

Freedom of Speech – Defamation, Sedition, etc.

Hate speech a menace, buck stops at centre: sc.

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Freedom of speech and reasonable restrictions

Mains level: Free speech vs. Hate speech

The Supreme Court has said the “buck ultimately stops with the government” to clamp down on hate speech and hate crimes, as they are offenses committed on society.

What is ‘Hate Speech’?

• There is no specific legal definition of ‘hate speech’.
• The Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report, says: “Hate speech generally is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like …
• Thus, hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.”
• In general, hate speech is considered a limitation on free speech that seeks to prevent or bar speech that exposes a person or a group or section of society to hate, violence, ridicule or indignity.

Attributes of Hate Speech

Hate Speech has three important attributes:

• Hate speech can be conveyed through any form of expression , including images, cartoons, memes, objects, gestures and symbols and it can be disseminated offline or online.
• Hate speech is “discriminatory” (biased, bigoted or intolerant) or “pejorative” (prejudiced, contemptuous or demeaning) of an individual or group.
• Hate speech calls out real or perceived “identity factors” of an individual or a group, including: “religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender,” but also characteristics such as language, economic or social origin, disability, health status, or sexual orientation, among many others.

How is it treated in Indian law?

• Provisions in law criminalize speeches, writings, actions, signs and representations that foment violence and spread disharmony between communities and groups and these are understood to refer to ‘hate speech’.
• Sections 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are generally taken to be the main penal provisions that deal with inflammatory speeches and expressions that seek to punish ‘hate speech’.

[I] Section 153A:

• Promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’, is an offence punishable with three years’ imprisonment.

[II] Section 505:

• 505(1): Statements conducing to public mischief – The statement, publication, report or rumour that is penalized under Section 505(1) should be one that promotes mutiny by the armed forces, or causes such fear or alarm that people are induced to commit an offence against the state or public tranquillity. This attracts a jail term of up to three years.
• 505(2): It is an offence to make statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.
• 505(3): Same offence will attract up to a five-year jail term if it takes place in a place of worship, or in any assembly engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies.

Some Supreme Court Judgements

1.Rangila Rasool case

• Rangila Rasool was a tract brought out by a Hindu publisher — that had made disparaging remarks about the Prophet’s private life.
• Cases against the first pamphlet, filed under Section 153A, were dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which examined the question whether targeting religious figures is different from targeting religions.
• This debate in interpretation prompted the colonial government to enact Section 295A with a wider scope to address these issues.

2. Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh

• The constitutionality of Section 295A was challenged.
• The Supreme Court upheld the law on the grounds that it was brought in to preserve  “public order”.
• Public order is an exemption to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to religion recognised by the Constitution.

3. Ramlal Puri v State of Madhya Pradesh

• In 1973, the Supreme Court said the test to be applied is whether the speech in question offends the “ordinary man of common sense” and not the “hypersensitive man”.
• However, these determinations are made by the court and the distinction can often be vague and vary from one judge to the other.

4.Baragur Ramachandrappa v State of Karnataka:

• A 2007 decision of the Supreme Court, “a pragmatic approach” was invoked in interpreting Section 295A.
• The state government had issued a notification banning Dharmakaarana, a Kannada novel on the ground that it was hate speech, invoking a gamut of provisions including Section 295A.

Why curb hate speeches?

• Creates social divide: Individuals believe in stereotypes that are ingrained in their minds and these stereotypes lead them to believe that a class or group of persons are inferior to them and as such cannot have the same rights as them.
• Threat to peaceful co-existence: The stubbornness to stick to a particular ideology without caring for the right to co-exist peacefully adds further fuel to the fire of hate speech.

Issues in regulating hate speech

• Powers to State: Almost every regulation of speech, no matter how well-intentioned, increases the power of the state.
• Hate speeches are Political: The issue is fundamentally political and we should not pretend that fine legal distinctions will solve the issue.
• Legal complications: An over-reliance on legal instruments to solve fundamental social and political problems often backfires.
• Misuse of Laws : Lower conviction rates for these provisions indicate that the process where a police officer can arrest without a warrant is often the punishment.
• Violation of free speech : Critics have pointed out that these laws are intended for the state to step in and restore “public order” rather than protect free speech.
• Vague terms in the law : The broad, vague terms in the laws are often invoked in its misuse.
• Old-aged Laws : Section 295A lie in the communally charged atmosphere of North India in the 1920s.

Suggestions made by Law Commission

In its 267th report, the Law Commission of India proposed including the following two provisions:

• Section 153C covers  crimes committed when someone threatens someone with remarks meant to incite fear, hatred, or violence based on someone’s race, caste, religion, sex, gender identity, or other characteristics.
• Section 505A  should be included and have provisions that make inciting fear, alarm, or violence a crime.

Suggestions for Changes in IPC:

Viswanathan Committee 2019:

• It proposed inserting Sections 153 C (b) and Section 505 A in the IPC  for incitement to commit an offence on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe.
• It  proposed punishment of up to two years along with Rs. 5,000 fine.

Bezbaruah Committee 2014:

• It  proposed amendment to Section 153 C IPC  (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years and fine or both and  Section 509 A IPC  (word, gesture or act intended to insult member of a particular race), punishable by three years or fine or both.

Way forward

• Subjects like hate speeches become a complex issue to deal with, in a country like India which is very diverse, as it was very difficult to differentiate between free and hate speech.
• There are many factors that should be considered while restraining speeches like strong opinions, offensive comments towards certain communities, the effect on values like dignity, liberty and equality.
• We all have to work together and communicate efficiently for our country to be a healthy place to live in.

Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

(Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Join us across social media platforms., your better version awaits you.

Home > Daily-current-affairs

Daily-current-affairs / 02 Jan 2022

Hate Speech : Daily Current Affairs

Relevance: GS-1: Social empowerment, communalism, regionalism & secularism.

Key phrases: Hate Speech, IPC, Law Commission, Section 153A, Section 505,

Why in News?

• A recent religious conclave held in Haridwar witnessed inflammatory and provocative speeches by proponents of Hindutva, many of them leaders of religious organisations. Reports say many of the speakers called for organised violence against Muslims and hinted at a Myanmar-type ‘cleansing campaign’ . There was a threat that if the government resisted the formation of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ , there will be an ‘1857-like’ revolt against the state.

What is Hate Speech?

• There is no specific legal definition of ‘hate speech’ . Provisions in law criminalise speeches, writings, actions, signs and representations that foment violence and spread disharmony between communities and groups and these are understood to refer to ‘hate speech’.
• The Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report, says: “Hate speech generally is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like ...
• Thus, hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.”
• In general, hate speech is considered a limitation on free speech that seeks to prevent or bar speech that exposes a person or a group or section of society to hate, violence, ridicule or indignity.

How is it treated in Indian law?

• Sections 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are generally taken to be the main penal provisions that deal with inflammatory speeches and expressions that seek to punish ‘hate speech’.
• Under Section 153A, ‘promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’, is an offence punishable with three years’ imprisonment. It attracts a five-year term if committed in a place of worship, or an assembly engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies.
• Section 505 of IPC makes it an offence to making “statements conducing to public mischief”. The statement, publication, report or rumour that is penalised under Section 505(1) should be one that promotes mutiny by the armed forces, or causes such fear or alarm that people are induced to commit an offence against the state or public tranquillity; or is intended to incite or incites any class or community to commit an offence against another class or community.

What has the Law Commission proposed?

• The Law Commission has proposed that separate offences be added to the IPC to criminalise hate speech quite specifically instead of being subsumed in the existing sections concerning inflammatory acts and speeches.
• It has proposed that two new sections, Section153C and Section 505A, be added. Its draft says Section 153C should make it an offence if anyone
• Uses gravely threatening words, spoken or written or signs or visible representations, with the intention to cause fear or alarm ; or
• Advocates hatred that causes incitement to violence, on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe.
• At present, the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws , which is considering more comprehensive changes to criminal law, is examining the issue of having specific provisions to tackle hate speech .

Judicial Interpretations on Hate Speech:

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 2015 : Issues were raised about Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relating to the fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, where the Court differentiated between discussion, advocacy, and incitement and held that the first two were the essence of Article 19(1).
• Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam 2011: The Court held that a mere act cannot be punished unless an individual resorted to violence or inciting any other person to violence.
• S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram 1989: In this case, the Court held that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless the situation so created are dangerous to the community/ public interest wherein this danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. There should be a proximate and direct nexus with the expression so used.

Effective way to tackle Hate speech in India:

• The most efficient way to dilute hatred is by the means of Education. Our education system has a prominent role to play in promoting and understanding compassion with others.
• Awareness programs and initiatives about maintaining cordial relationship must be taken by not only the government but also by private people.
• Although there are many laws regarding hate speeches but stricter penalizing is required as religious sentiments and beliefs are a precious thing for an individual.
• Fight against hate speech cannot be isolated. It should be discussed on a wider platform such as the United Nations . Every responsible government, regional bodies, and other international and regional actors should respond to this threat.
• Cases of hate speech can be addressed through Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms as it proposes a shift from the long procedures of the court to the settlement of the dispute between parties by way of negotiation, mediation, arbitration and/or conciliation.

Way Forward:

• As victims of hate speech they fear and are indeed nervous to enter public spaces or participate in the discourse. This brings a change in their behaviour, such intangible effects of hate speech on people are the most insidious and damaging to their right to live with dignity.
• This issue should be strictly and earnestly addressed with tougher laws and their stricter implementation. As a people who have been existing on the basis of unity in diversity , societal sensitisation is necessary and nothing can be more useful than social media
• If done, we in fact are acting true to the Preambular values like ‘ fraternity and dignity of the individual’ apart from Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties enshrined in our Constitution

Source: The Hindu

Mains Question:

Q. A recent religious conclave held in Haridwar witnessed inflammatory and provocative speeches by proponents of Hindutva. It brought again hate speech as an issue of immediate public concern in India. With reference to this incident briefly explain Hate Speech ? How does Hate Speech pose complex challenges to freedom of speech and expression? Illustrate.

Click Here for Daily Current Affairs MCQ Quiz

Recent article.

Get in Touch

Social links.

Connect with social account.

Test Series

635, Ground Floor, Main Road, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi 110009

Dhyeya IAS © 2024 | All rights reserved | Made by WNT / Sitemap.xml

Enquiry Now

Your Preparation Partner

Law Commission against Hate Speech

• Commission has cautioned the government that hate speech is considered outside the realm of protective discourse and has urged for the expansion of the penal law against hate crimes.
• It held that indisputably, offensive hate speech has real and devastating effects on people’s lives and risks their health and safety.
• It is also harmful and divisive for communities and hampers social progress. If left unchecked, it can severely affect right to life of every individual.
• The commission has drafted a new law The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2017 by inserting new Sections to fortify democracy against hate speeches.
• The law defined hate speech as any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.
• Its Section 153C penalises incitement to hatred and Section 505A for the first time makes ‘causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases’ a specific criminal offence.
• Section 153C calls for punishing guilty person with two years’ imprisonment or Rs. 5,000 in fine or both. Section 505A provides a punishment of one year imprisonment or Rs. 5,000 in fine or both.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Recent Audio Rights Disputes Rock South Cinema Industry
• US Woman files Rape Case against Lawyer for False Promise of Marriage
• सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने MCD को लगाई फटकार, कहा- दिल्ली में ठोस कचरे के निपटान की स्थिति चिंताजनक
• Solid waste disposal in Delhi: Supreme Court slams MCD, says 'Sorry State of Affairs'
• High Court asks Delhi Police to reply to MP Mahua Moitra's plea to quash FIR
• जज साहब, कोर्ट आदेश कैसे हटा सकता है... याचिका सामने आते ही CJI चंद्रचूड़ हो गए हैरान
• UP Govt defends Kanwar Yatra name plate decision in Supreme Court
• विधेयकों को मंजूरी देने से इनकार का मामला, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने केंद्र और राज्यपालों से मांगा जवाब
• यूपी सरकार ने कांवड़ मार्गों पर नामपट्टिका वाले अपने आदेश को सही ठहराया, कहा- ये शांति बनाए रखने के लिए था
• 'Bar Council shall ensure that members are enrolled only from reputed institutions': HC shocked over Advocate's plea seeking protection to run Brothel
• हाईकोर्ट ने सीरीज 'त्रिभुवन मिश्रा सीए टॉपर' की रिलीज पर रोक लगाने से किया इनकार
• Supreme Court seeks replies from Centre, Secretaries of West Bengal, Kerala Governors against denial of assent to bills
• अरविंद केजरीवाल को हाईकोर्ट से बड़ी राहत, वकीलों के साथ दो अतिरिक्त ऑनलाइन मीटिंग की मिली इजाजत
• 219 proposals for High Court Judge appointment under process: Union Law Ministry
• जेल में बंद विधायक अब्बास अंसारी की जमानत पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट सख्त, योगी सरकार से मांगा जवाब

• Central Acts
• Latest News
• Corporate Law News
• Human Rights News
• Intellectual Property News
• Did you Know?
• International News
• हिंदी न्यूज़
• Law Firm News
• Marriage and Divorce News
• Tourism News
• World of Petroleum & Natural Gas
• Case Analysis Supreme Court High Courts Tribunal Courts
• Cheque Bounce News
• Legal Services News
• Petroleum News

Supreme Court Judgments

• Supreme Court

High Court Judgments

• Delhi High Court
• Allahabad High Court
• Bombay High Court
• Calcutta High Court
• Madras High Court
• Punjab & Haryana High Court
• Andhra High Court
• Chattisgarh High Court
• Gauhati High Court
• Gujarat High Court
• Himachal Pradesh High Court
• Jammu & Kashmir High Court
• Jharkhand High Court
• Karnataka High Court
• Kerala High Court
• Madhya Pradesh High Court
• Meghalaya High Court
• Manipur High Court
• Orissa High Court
• Patna High Court
• Rajasthan High Court
• Sikkim High Court
• Tripura High Court
• Telangana High Court
• Uttarakhand High Court
• Arbitration
• Conciliation

Campus Buzz

• Call for Papers
• Conferences & Seminars
• Courses & Workshops
• Debate Competitions
• Essay Competitions
• Fellowships
• Fests, MUNs and Other Competitions
• International Opportunities
• Internships
• Moot Court Competitions
• Scholarships
• Legal Documents
• Legal Forms for Advocates
• Legal Dictionary
• SC Collegium Resolutions
• Law Commission of India Reports
• NCRB Reports
• Justice Verma Committee Report, 2013
• Justice BN Srikrishna Report on Institutionalisation of Arbitration
• Legal Maxims
• Web Links Directory

Legal Education

• Law School Entrance Exams
• Law Schools and Colleges in India
• Overseas Law Schools
• Careers in Law

Circulars & Notices

• RBI Circulars
• RBI Notices
• SEBI Circulars
• SEBI Notices
• MCA Circulars
• MCA Notices
• Supreme Court Calendar 2023
• Supreme Court Bar Association
• Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record
• All High Courts Calendar
• High Courts Portals
• Judicial Exam Notice Board
• Judicial Services Exam Question Papers
• Bar Councils
• Bar Associations

Law Commission Report No. 267- Hate Speech

• Court Calendar

Law Commission Report No. 267- Hate Speech by Latest Laws Team on Scribd

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

LatestLaws Partner Event : 3rd Arbitrate In India Conclave 2024

Hate speech: A misused freedom | 31st October, 2020

ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 10th August. Click Here for more information.

What is hate speech? 

The term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of their collective identity, be it race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexuality.

Hate speech threatens two key doctrines of democracy-

• The guarantee of equal dignity to all
• The public good of inclusiveness.

Criteria to identify hate speech:

• The extremity of the speech.
• Status of the author of the speech.
• Status of victims of the speech.
• Potentiality of the speech.
• Context of the Speech.

Regulation of Hate speech in India

• Constitutional provisions: Article 19 (2) of the Constitution gives all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression but subject to “reasonable restrictions” for preserving inter alia “public order, decency or morality”.
• Statutory provisions :   India prohibits hate speech by several sections such as Section 95 of CRPC Section 124A or Section 153A or Section 153B or Section 292 or Section 293 or Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

Various Causes of hate speech-

• Historical underpinnings-  Any historical enmity between various religious or societal groups can motivate them to do hate crimes. During the independence struggle, both communities were divided which still has an impact. For example; the divide and rule policy.
• Vote bank politics: Often vote bank politics, use various communal or emotional tools to garner the vote of few groups by inciting hatred in them. They use false stories, news, etc to incite such incidents.
• Acceptance of hate by society: Sometimes society, in general, accepts hatred against a particular group or nation based on past experience of atrocities. E.g many groups see refugees or migrated people as their enemies and islamophobia in European countries.
• Illiteracy- Lack of education prevents the overall development of an individual. Still, about 23% of the population in India is illiterate. This prevents the development of tolerance and understanding of individuality in them.
• Consensus in society: Increasing unemployment lead to the development of feeling of hatred against a particular group especially refugees and migrated one. People see them as an enemy and one who snatches their rights. This phenomenon is worldwide. For eg, thousands of people of the northeast living in Bangalore headed to Guwahati, following rumors of violence targeting them.
• Prejudice and bias- Bias toward a particular group can be a reason for hate crimes. E.g 704 cases of crimes against Northeast people in Delhi in 3 years. It can incite hate crime against them without making any difference between culprit and innocent.
• For instance, in 2010 when Nirupama, a student of journalism, was killed by her family members in Jharkhand for planning to marry her boyfriend from another caste.
• Lack of strong laws- lack of strong and clear laws, poor implementation results in low conviction rate. So, culprits are let to roam freely.
• Social media: Fake news, propagandais often invoked on social media against a particular group to destabilise a society. For example, Muzaffarnagar riots in 2013.

Challenges in regulating hate speech

• Freedom to speech- Any regulations for social media content should follow globally accepted norms of freedom of speech and impartiality which is hard to apply with the restrictions on the content.
• Independent Regulator –  An independent regulator can be misused in geographies where the idea of impartiality is used to the wish of the ruling regimes.

• Privacy Regulation –  The introduction of privacy regulations such as the European Union’s General data protection regulation (GDPR) signaled the fact that self- regulations of the platforms didn’t work in the desired way.

Way forward 

• Code of conduct : the European Union has also established a code of conduct to ensure non-proliferation of hate speech under the framework of a ‘digital single market.’It requires collaborative, independent and inclusive regulation that is customised to regional and cultural specifications while adhering to global best practices of content moderation and privacy rights.
• The Law Commission of India recommended that new provisions in IPC are required to be incorporated to address the issue of hate speech.
• Punitive action : The legislature and political parties should suspend or dismiss members who are implicated in hate crimes or practise hate speech. Strict disciplinary act should be taken against such individuals and parties.
• The electronic and print media should stop showing or publishing hateful comments and threats. Any act of incitement of hatred should be punished by cancelling license or through imprisonment or fine.
• Imbibing values: Values of tolerance and respect that are common to all religions should be preached and schools should revitalise courses on the directive principles of our Constitution.
• If the speech or statement or art of work have an element of incitement of hate, it should be treated as a hate speech under section 153(a) of IPC and not as a Blasphemy.

Type your email…

Search Articles

Prelims 2024 current affairs.

• Art and Culture
• Indian Economy
• Science and Technology
• Environment  & Ecology
• International Relations
• Polity &  Nation
• Important Bills and Acts
• International Organizations
• Index, Reports and Summits
• Government Schemes and Programs
• Miscellaneous
• Species in news

All India Open Test(Simulator X)

[email protected]

• Our Centers Delhi Bhubaneswar Lucknow

CURRENT AFFAIRS FOR UPSC IAS

Hate Speech

Published: 25th Jun, 2022

The debate surrounding the comments by ruling party spokespersons have put the spotlight on the law that deals with criticism of or insult to religion.

• India does not have a formal legal framework for dealing with hate speech.
• India prohibits hate speech through several sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and other laws which put limitations on the freedom of expression.
• Constitutionally, Article 19 gives all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression but the said freedom of expression is subject to "reasonable restrictions" for preserving inter alia "public order, decency or morality".

What is hate speech?

• There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the notion of what constitutes "hateful" speech is debatable.
• Hate speech is defined as any form of communication, whether spoken, written, or physical, that criticizes or discriminates against a person or a group based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender, or other identity factor.

Legal Provisions of Hate Speech in India

• Responsible speech is the essence of the liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Article 19(2) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens of India.
• Hate speech has not been defined in any law in India. However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech.

Some Supreme Court Judgements

Rangila Rasool case

• Rangila Rasool was a tract brought out by a Hindu publisher — that had made disparaging remarks about the Prophet’s private life.
• Cases against the first pamphlet, filed under Section 153A, were dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which examined the question whether targeting religious figures is different from targeting religions.
• This debate in interpretation prompted the colonial government to enact Section 295A with a wider scope to address these issues.

Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh

• The constitutionality of Section 295A was challenged.
• The Supreme Court upheld the law on the grounds that it was brought in to preserve “public order”.
• Public order is an exemption to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to religion recognised by the Constitution.

Ramlal Puri v State of Madhya Pradesh

• In 1973, the Supreme Court said the test to be applied is whether the speech in question offends the “ordinary man of common sense” and not the “hypersensitive man”.
• However, these determinations are made by the court and the distinction can often be vague and vary from one judge to the other.

Baragur Ramachandrappa v State of Karnataka:

• A 2007 decision of the Supreme Court, “a pragmatic approach” was invoked in interpreting Section 295A.
• The state government had issued a notification banning Dharmakaarana, a Kannada novel on the ground that it was hate speech, invoking a gamut of provisions including Section 295A.

Concerns associated

• Misuse of Laws : Lower conviction rates for these provisions indicate that the process where a police officer can arrest without a warrant is often the punishment.
• Violation of free speech : Critics have pointed out that these laws are intended for the state to step in and restore “public order” rather than protect free speech.
• Vague terms in the law : The broad, vague terms in the laws are often invoked in its misuse.
• Old-aged Laws : Section 295A lie in the communally charged atmosphere of North India in the 1920s.

Way forward

• Section 295A was passed in a different societal paradigm but as society has changed the law needs to change as well. If the law still reflects the ghosts of the past then there is no need for that law.
• Section 295A needs to change to accommodate both religious sentiments and freedom of expression in a harmonious manner.
• Rights of the individual need to be given the same importance as the right of the community. 

Hate speech needs to be understood as the starting point or origin of marginalizing a particular class of persons under ‘fear of threat’. It should not be protected in the name of freedom of speech, otherwise it will lead to violation of principles on which Indian democracy is built on.

More Articles

Verifying, please be patient.

Our Centers

DELHI (Karol Bagh)

GS SCORE, 1B, Second Floor, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 (Beside Karol Bagh Metro Station Gate No. 8)

Get directions on Google Maps

BHUBANESWAR (Jaydev Vihar)

GS SCORE, Plot No.2298, Jaydev Vihar Square, Near HCG Day Care, BBSR - 751013

LUCKNOW (Aliganj)

GS SCORE, 2nd Floor, B-33, Sangam Chauraha, Sector H, Aliganj, Lucknow, UP - 226024

Delhi (Karol Bagh) Centre

GS SCORE, Second Floor, Metro Tower, 1B, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 (Beside Karol Bagh Metro Station Gate No. 8)

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +91 8448496262

Classroom / online / Live programs

• Mains Classes
• Mains Advance Classes
• Ethics & Essay Classes
• IAS Foundation
• Aadhar:NCERT Foundation
• Target PT:Prelims Classes
• Current Affairs Mentorship Program
• Optional Classes
• Optional Q&A (TEST SERIES & Mentorship)
• Mains Previous Year Questions

TEST SERIES/ MENTORSHIP

• ITS:Integrated Test Series & Mentorship
• GS Mains Q&A (Mentorship & Test Series)
• GS Test Series
• Ethics & Essay Test Series
• Samarth - Mains Answer Writing

STUDY MATERIAL

• Prelims Study Material
• Mains Study Material
• Mains Answer Writing Workbook
• Meet the Mentor
• Terms & Conditions
• © 2024 - IAS SCORE

All Rights Reserved.

Welcome to our secure login portal. Access your account with ease.

• Using Password

Not registered yet? register here!

Welcome to our secure register portal. For a brighter future, register now and unlock endless learning opportunities.

User Register

Already have an account? Login

Oops, forgot your password? Don't worry, we've got you covered. Reset it here

Lost your login details? No problem! forgot your password in just a few clicks

Forgot Password

Verify your mobile number, you have successfully logged in.

Join Us on WhatsApp

News | Star-studded commission launched to combat…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Investigative Reporting
• Environment

News | Star-studded commission launched to combat rising hate in LA County

The “Unity Coalition,” launched on Thursday under L.A. vs. Hate, is a new collaborative effort comprised of people from the arts, sports and entertainment industries who are dedicated to combating hate and promoting unity, officials said in a news release .

Coalition members include actress Alyssa Milano, NBA player Paul George, comedian Tig Notaro, actress Chelsea Rendon, actor Nathan Davis Jr., and producer-singer KC Porter, with “many more to come,” officials said.

Led by the county’s Human Relations Commission, L.A. vs Hate is a community-centered campaign to stop hate crimes and attacks, report when they happen, and provide effective anti-hate resources, officials said. Recent campaign efforts include murals honoring L.A.’s diversity and public service announcements featuring victims.

“I look forward to working with this coalition to support communities who have been targeted for hate and to spread positive messages of solidarity and unity,” George said in the release. “No matter who you are and where you come from, you should feel safe and welcome in Los Angeles.”

“I want to fight back against discrimination, bigotry and hate that I know is on the rise in L.A.,” Davis Jr. agreed. “I love my hometown for itsincredible diversity that is reflected in the artistic expressions of me and so many other artists – and I’m going to do my part to stand up and protect it. Hate has no place in L.A.”

According to the latest Hate Crime Report from the CA Department of Justice , L.A. County reported the most hate crimes in the state; a record 664 in 2023. Almost 60% — 397 — of those occurred in the city of Los Angeles. The L.A. County Sheriff’s Department reported 44 hate crimes, and Long Beach reported 31 events.

Also, attacks against LGBTQ+, Jewish and Muslim communities significantly rose across the state last year, the report said.

Officials said that L.A. vs. Hate’s free reporting hotline — 211 — has received 2,300 reports of hate since its launch in 2019 . Still, research shows hate crimes are still widely underreported due to stigma, cultural barriers, and overall mistrust with law enforcement.

Robin Toma, executive director of the L.A. Commission on Human Relations, said the coalition “provides a space for individuals from diverse backgrounds to lend their unique lived experiences as experiences, as well as their power and privilege, to support the unity of all our communities against hate, hostility, and systemic discrimination.”

“Together, we can make a significant difference in standing up to prejudice, bigotry and inequity, and fulfilling our vision of a shared sense of belonging,” Toma said.

In the fall, the coalition will support the statewide United Against Hate Week from Sept. 21 through Sept. 27, calling on local agencies to work with the community to end discrimination of all forms.

For more information, and to report any incidents, visit LAvsHate.org or call the multilingual hotline, 2-1-1.

Reporters Victoria Ivie and Allyson Vergara contributed to this report. 

• Newsroom Guidelines
• Report an Error

More in News

SUBSCRIBER ONLY

News | long beach disability pride celebrates 3rd annual event in downtown long beach.

News | Housing sides clash at L.A. City Hall hearing on density, renting, homeownership

National Politics | FBI says Trump was indeed struck by bullet during assassination attempt

News | Traffic impact of future San Pedro bridge worries officials