DashoVidya IAS–Syllabus Affairs

Polity (January, 2022)

TOPIC – Rising frequency of Hate Speech in India

Issue in brief –In a petition filed in the Supreme Court, petitioner has been asked to review hate
speech laws and various High Courts have been called upon to provide interpretation of ingredients of
hate speech.
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/hate-speech-in-the-time-of-free-
speech/article38245417.ece

Where in Syllabus:
GS 2: Significant provisions of Indian Constitution and social justice

❖ What forms 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’.
• 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.
• Recent religious conclaves held in Haridwar and Delhi
witnessed inflammatory and provocative speeches by
proponents of Hindutva.
• 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.
• 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 are the provisions of law against hate speech?

Legislative set-up

DashoVidya IAS, email id: dashovidya.upsc@gmail.com; Telegram: https://t.me/DashoVidyaIAS 1

Contact no - 8595852855
 DashoVidya IAS–Syllabus Affairs
Polity (January, 2022)

Court’s Judgements

Cases Court’s remarks

• Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of • The Supreme Court, described hate speech as
India (2014) “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.”

• Campaign Against Hate Speech v. The State • The High Court of Karnataka, was of the
of Karnataka (2020) opinion that the Indian Penal Code illegalises
speeches that are intended to promote enmity or
prejudice the maintenance of harmony between
different classes.
• State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai • The Supreme Court, emphasised the need to
Thogadia (2004) sustain communal harmony to ensure the
welfare of the people.

• G. Thirumurugan Gandhi v. State (2019) • The Madras High Court explained that hate
speeches cause discord between classes and that
responsibility attached to free speech should not
be forgotten.

• 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”.

❖ What issues and challenges are faced in criminalising hate speech ?

• Hate speech cannot be easily reduced to a standard definition due to the myriad forms it can take.
Uncertainty around its interpretation has resulted in the adoption of varying standards.
• The Madras High Court, in Maridhas v. State (2021), quashed an FIR alleging hate speech involving
targeting of minorities by holding that the ‘YouTuber’ is entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution
• In contrast, the Madras High Court, in the case of Fr. P. George Ponnaiah v. Inspector of
Police (2022), gave no relief to the petitioner by holding him to be a person of influence.
• The Court has failed to appreciate that a YouTuber with more than 4 lakh subscribers and a periodic
record of publishing motivated content would have more influence than a priest with a limited
audience from an isolated incident.
• Unfortunately, divergent decisions from constitutional courts expose the lack of established legal
standards in defining hate speech, especially those propagated via the digital medium.
• State action commonly taken against modern-day hate speeches have not been able to suppress the
underlying objective of inciting communal disharmony or hatred, that survives through digital or
social media platforms for eternity.

DashoVidya IAS, email id: dashovidya.upsc@gmail.com; Telegram: https://t.me/DashoVidyaIAS 2

Contact no - 8595852855
 DashoVidya IAS–Syllabus Affairs
Polity (January, 2022)

❖ What modifications in the existing provisions have been proposed?

Law Commission
• Proposed 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.
• 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”.
Expert Committees
• 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.

❖ What can be the way ahead/policy prescriptions?

• Much of the existing penal provisions deal with hate speech belong to the pre-Internet era. The need of the
hour is specialised legislation that will govern hate speech propagated via the Internet and, especially,
social media.
• Specific and durable provisions should be brought by amending the IPC and the Information
Technology Act, that combat hate speech.
• Reference can be drawn to the Australian federal law called the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 2019,
which imposes liability upon Internet service providers as prescribed by the law.

Practice questions
Prelims:
Q. Which of the following statutes enables the court to penalize a person accused of delivering “Hate
speech”?
1) Indian Penal Code, 1860
2) Representation of People Act, 1951
3) Information Technology Act, 2000
4) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Select the correct answer from the code given below
a) 1,2 and 3
b) 2, 3 and 4
c) 1 and 4
d) All of the above
Answer: d

Mains: (Level-Moderate)
Q. The existing provisions of law is not sufficient to cope with the menace of “hate speeches”.
Critically Analyse (10 Marks, 150 words)

DIY: https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/41312.pdf

DashoVidya IAS, email id: dashovidya.upsc@gmail.com; Telegram: https://t.me/DashoVidyaIAS 3

Contact no - 8595852855