Hate Speech Laws In Indian Context
What is Hate Speech?
Hate speech generally refers to speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a particular individual or group, based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, caste, gender, sexual orientation, or other identity markers.
Legal Provisions Governing Hate Speech in India
India does not have a specific law titled “hate speech law,” but various provisions within the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other laws cover hate speech to prevent communal disharmony and maintain public order. Some key provisions are:
Section 153A IPC: Promotes 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 IPC: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
Section 505 IPC: Statements conducing to public mischief, including rumors or false information that can cause fear or alarm.
Section 66A IT Act (now struck down, but earlier relevant): Related to offensive messages through communication service.
Other laws: Various state laws and the Representation of the People Act also have provisions related to hate speech during elections.
Important Case Laws on Hate Speech in India
1. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
Facts: Kedar Nath Singh was charged under Section 124A (sedition) and 153A IPC for making speeches that allegedly incited violence.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld Section 153A but clarified that speech would only be punishable if it incites imminent violence or public disorder. Mere criticism or expression of opinion, even if offensive, is not punishable.
Significance: This case set the benchmark for restricting hate speech only when it incites violence or disturbance of public order.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts: This case challenged Section 66A of the IT Act which criminalized sending offensive messages through communication services.
Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, stating it was vague and violated the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Significance: The ruling emphasized protecting freedom of speech but also recognized that hate speech leading to public disorder can be regulated under other provisions like IPC Sections 153A and 295A.
3. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957)
Facts: Modi was convicted under Section 153A for distributing inflammatory speeches that were seen to promote enmity.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 153A IPC, saying that law prevents incitement to violence or hatred among communities.
Significance: Affirmed that hate speech laws are necessary to protect public order and communal harmony.
4. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011)
Facts: The case dealt with the power of the police to arrest without prior sanction in hate speech cases.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that certain speech acts fall under hate speech and can cause communal disharmony. However, police action must be cautious and balanced with freedom of speech.
Significance: This case balanced the protection of freedom of speech with the necessity to prevent hate speech that can lead to communal violence.
5. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014)
Facts: The case involved inflammatory speeches made by religious leaders and politicians that caused communal tension.
Judgment: The Supreme Court issued guidelines to curb hate speech and emphasized the role of police and authorities to take preventive action.
Significance: It reinforced the state's responsibility to curb hate speech, especially by influential people, to prevent communal violence.
Summary
Hate speech laws in India mainly aim to preserve public order and communal harmony.
The Supreme Court has consistently balanced freedom of speech with the need to prevent violence and hatred.
Provisions like Section 153A and 295A IPC remain central in hate speech cases.
The judiciary has clarified that mere offensive or critical speech is not punishable unless it incites imminent violence.
Enforcement agencies have to act carefully to ensure constitutional freedoms are not unduly curtailed while preventing hate speech.
RELATED Blog
0 comments