Promoting Enmity Between Groups
Legal Provision:
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 153A deals with “Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.” The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, continues this prohibition under a similar provision, aiming to curb activities that incite hatred or violence between communities.
Key Elements of the Offence:
Intent or Knowledge: The accused must intend or knowingly promote enmity or hatred.
Grounds: Religion, race, caste, place of birth, residence, language, or any other group identity.
Acts: Includes words, signs, visible representations, or writings.
Result: Likely to cause breach of peace or disturb public tranquility.
Purpose of the Law:
To prevent communal violence, riots, or social discord.
To maintain peace and harmony in a pluralistic society.
To penalize hate speech or incitement to violence against any community.
Important Case Laws on Promoting Enmity Between Groups
Case 1: Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962)
Facts: The accused was charged with promoting enmity by making speeches allegedly inciting hatred against certain communities.
Legal Issue: Whether the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects such speech.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute. It can be restricted to prevent acts promoting enmity and disturbing public order. The court upheld the validity of Section 153A but clarified that only speech causing imminent threat or likely to disrupt peace can be punished.
Significance: Landmark case defining limits of free speech and confirming constitutionality of promoting enmity laws.
Case 2: Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab (1995)
Facts: Balwant Singh was convicted for distributing pamphlets that allegedly promoted enmity between religious groups.
Legal Issue: Whether distribution of such material falls under Section 153A.
Ruling: The court held that distributing material that promotes hatred, animosity, or disaffection between communities is punishable under Section 153A, irrespective of whether it resulted in actual violence.
Significance: Affirmed that promoting enmity through writings is punishable even without actual breach of peace.
Case 3: Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam (2011)
Facts: Arup Bhuyan, a journalist, was accused of making speeches and writings that allegedly promoted enmity.
Legal Issue: Whether critical or dissenting views fall under enmity promotion.
Ruling: The Supreme Court observed that merely expressing dissent or criticism does not amount to promoting enmity unless it incites violence or hatred. The test is whether there is intention or likelihood of disturbing public order.
Significance: Differentiates between hate speech and legitimate dissent.
Case 4: Ramji Lal Modi vs. State of U.P. (1957)
Facts: The accused made public speeches that allegedly promoted enmity between caste groups.
Legal Issue: Whether speeches inciting caste hatred come under Section 153A.
Ruling: The court ruled that statements inciting hatred or ill-will between different caste groups fall within Section 153A's ambit. It emphasized maintaining public harmony.
Significance: Expanded the scope of the law to caste-based enmity.
Case 5: Mohd. Ziauddin vs. State of U.P. (1961)
Facts: The accused was charged for making speeches which allegedly caused enmity between religious groups.
Legal Issue: What is the threshold for speech to be punishable under Section 153A?
Ruling: The court stated that for prosecution, it must be shown that the speech has the tendency to create public disorder or enmity. Mere harsh or offensive words are insufficient.
Significance: Established the “tendency test” for hate speech cases.
Case 6: Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Principal Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi (2018)
Facts: The petitioner challenged an FIR for comments on social media alleged to promote enmity.
Legal Issue: Balancing freedom of expression and prevention of hate speech on social media.
Ruling: The court stressed that social media is not exempt from laws on promoting enmity. Speech causing hatred or likelihood of breach of peace can be restricted.
Significance: Recognizes social media as a potent medium for enmity promotion and subject to legal scrutiny.
Case 7: Tukaram S. Dighole vs. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Facts: The accused made inflammatory speeches during a public gathering.
Legal Issue: Whether speeches at public meetings intended to provoke enmity are punishable.
Ruling: The court upheld conviction under Section 153A, noting the intent and effect of speech inciting hatred and possible breach of peace.
Significance: Emphasized the importance of context and intent in determining guilt.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Facts | Legal Issue | Ruling | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kedar Nath Singh (1962) | Speeches inciting hatred | Freedom of speech vs public order | Free speech limited by public order | Landmark on hate speech and free speech |
| Balwant Singh (1995) | Pamphlets promoting hatred | Distribution under Section 153A | Punishable even without violence | Hate writings punishable |
| Arup Bhuyan (2011) | Journalist’s dissent | Dissent vs enmity promotion | Dissent protected unless incites violence | Protects criticism |
| Ramji Lal Modi (1957) | Speeches on caste | Caste hatred under Section 153A | Caste hatred punishable | Expands scope to caste |
| Mohd. Ziauddin (1961) | Religious speeches | Threshold for speech punishability | Tendency to cause disorder needed | “Tendency test” |
| Manohar Lal Sharma (2018) | Social media comments | Hate speech online | Social media speech liable | Social media regulated |
| Tukaram Dighole (2010) | Inflammatory speeches | Public meeting speeches | Conviction upheld | Context and intent matter |
Explanation of Legal Principles with Cases
1. Intention and Knowledge:
In Kedar Nath Singh, the court emphasized that there must be a clear intention or knowledge that the speech or act promotes enmity or hatred. Accidental or unintentional remarks are not punishable.
2. Tendency to Cause Public Disorder:
As per Mohd. Ziauddin, the prosecution must prove that the words used have the tendency to disturb public order or cause enmity between groups.
3. Freedom of Speech Limitations:
While free speech is fundamental, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Cases like Arup Bhuyan and Kedar Nath Singh balance this tension.
4. Scope of Grounds:
Promoting enmity includes religion, caste, race, language, and other group identities (Ramji Lal Modi case).
5. Medium of Offence:
The offence can be committed through speeches, writings, signs, or social media posts, as seen in Balwant Singh and Manohar Lal Sharma.
RELATED Blog
0 comments