Hate Speech Offences In India
I. Introduction to Hate Speech in India
Hate speech refers to speech, conduct, writing, or expression that offends, threatens, or insults individuals or groups based on attributes like religion, caste, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or nationality.
India does not have a clear statutory definition of hate speech. However, the term is interpreted through various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), other laws, and judicial precedents.
II. Legal Provisions Related to Hate Speech
Here are the key sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that criminalize hate speech:
Section 153A IPC – 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 153B IPC – Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration.
Section 295A IPC – Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Section 298 IPC – Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.
Section 505 IPC – Statements conducing to public mischief.
Other relevant laws include:
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Prohibits use of hate speech in electoral campaigns.
Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 66A (struck down) once penalized offensive electronic communication.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) – In some cases, hate speech that promotes terrorism or secession may be prosecuted under UAPA.
III. Important Case Laws on Hate Speech in India
1. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957 AIR 620)
Facts: The appellant published an article in a magazine allegedly insulting Prophet Muhammad, leading to charges under Section 295A IPC.
Issue: Whether Section 295A violates the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 295A. It held that this section does not restrict all speech, but only those "deliberate and malicious" acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Hence, it is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
Significance: Laid the groundwork for balancing free speech vs religious harmony.
2. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) 11 SCC 477
Facts: A PIL was filed seeking strict action against hate speech by political and religious leaders.
Held: The Supreme Court refused to frame new guidelines for hate speech, saying the existing laws are sufficient. However, it emphasized that hate speech is a menace and undermines constitutional values.
Observation: The Court called for self-regulation by media and political parties and asked the Law Commission to examine the issue further.
Significance: Although no new laws were made, the case highlighted the lacunae in enforcement.
3. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 377
Facts: The accused was charged under the TADA Act for being a member of a banned organization (ULFA). The prosecution claimed that mere membership implied criminality.
Held: The Supreme Court held that mere membership or passive expression of support does not constitute a crime unless accompanied by incitement to violence or actual violence.
Relevance to Hate Speech: Reinforced the “clear and present danger” doctrine, asserting that mere speech is not punishable unless it incites violence.
4. Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020 SCC OnLine SC 994)
Facts: Journalist Amish Devgan made derogatory remarks about Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti during a television debate. FIRs were filed across different states under Sections 153A, 295A, and others.
Held: The Supreme Court refused to quash the FIRs. It ruled that freedom of speech is not absolute, and hate speech that hurts religious sentiments can be punished.
Key Observation: The Court said that expression made recklessly or without due care can attract criminal liability under hate speech laws.
Significance: This case clarified that reckless speech that hurts religious sentiments can be punished even if not intended maliciously.
5. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 7 SCC 431
Facts: The accused made speeches during communal tensions that allegedly incited violence.
Issue: He was charged under Sections 153A and 505(2) IPC.
Held: The Supreme Court held that mere criticism of a religious group is not enough; the intention to incite hatred or enmity must be proved.
Significance: This case established that mens rea (intent) is a critical component of hate speech offences.
6. Zubair v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) (Multiple FIRs case)
Facts: Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of Alt News, was booked under various sections including 295A IPC for old tweets, including a movie screenshot.
Held: The Supreme Court granted bail and clubbed multiple FIRs. It emphasized journalistic freedom and protection against harassment through multiple prosecutions.
Significance: Reinforced the need to protect free speech while ensuring responsible expression.
IV. Key Principles Evolved from Judicial Decisions
Free Speech is Not Absolute: Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – including public order, decency, morality, and security of the state.
Intent Matters: Courts distinguish between deliberate, malicious speech vs mere criticism or commentary.
Incitement vs Offence: Mere offensive speech is not criminal unless it incites violence or public disorder.
Context is Crucial: The setting, manner, and impact of the speech are examined closely by courts.
Preventing Misuse: Courts have cautioned against the misuse of hate speech laws to target dissent or satire.
V. Conclusion
India's legal system seeks to strike a delicate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the need to maintain communal harmony and public order. The judiciary plays a critical role in interpreting the ambiguous line between free speech and hate speech.
While the laws are in place, the challenge lies in their fair and consistent enforcement, and avoiding selective targeting. With the rise of social media, the issue has become even more complex, making judicial oversight and law reform ever more necessary.
RELATED Blog
0 comments