In News:

Karnataka has introduced the first state-level legislation in India specifically aimed at tackling hate speech and hate crimes. The move highlights a long-standing legal gap although the term “hate speech” is widely used, Indian criminal law does not formally define it.

What is Hate Speech?

According to the 267th Report of the Law Commission (2017), hate speech includes words, signs, or visible representations intended to incite hatred, discrimination, or violence against individuals or groups based on identity markers such as religion, caste, race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Constitutional Context

• Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, sovereignty, defamation, and incitement to offences.

Thus, hate speech regulation must balance free expression and social harmony.

Existing Legal Framework in India

India currently regulates hate speech through scattered provisions, mainly focused on public order:

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

• Section 196 (earlier IPC 153A): Promoting enmity between groups and acts prejudicial to harmony.
• Section 299 (earlier IPC 295A): Deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
• Section 353: Statements or misinformation inciting offences or disturbing public order.

These offences are cognisable, allowing arrest without warrant, and usually carry punishment up to three years.

Other Relevant Laws

• Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Disqualification for certain hate-related offences.
• SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Penalises caste-based insults and humiliation.
• Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 – Addresses promotion of untouchability.

Digital Dimension

Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 was widely used for online speech but was struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India for being vague and unconstitutional.

Supreme Court’s Approach

The Supreme Court of India has increasingly intervened:

• Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India – Directed police to take suo motu action on hate speech.
• Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India – Mandated nodal officers to prevent mob violence.
• Later observations stressed that implementation failures, not legal vacuum alone, are the key challenge.

Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025

Key Features

• Clear Definition of Hate Speech: Expression causing injury or disharmony against a person or group based on:Religion, Race, Caste, Gender, Sexual orientation, Place of birth and Disability
  • Inclusion of gender and sexual orientation expands protection beyond current BNS scope.
• Collective Liability: If hate speech is committed through an organisation, office bearers or responsible persons can also be held liable.
• Online Regulation: State government empowered to block or remove hateful online content, addressing digital propagation.
• Stringent Punishment
  • First offence: 1–7 years imprisonment + ?50,000 fine
  • Repeat offence: 2–10 years imprisonment + ?1 lakh fine
  • Offences are cognisable and non-bailable
• Victim Compensation: Mandates adequate compensation for victims.
• Public Good Exception: Books, art, research, or material published in good faith for public interest may be exempt.

Past Attempts to Define Hate Speech

• Law Commission 267th Report (2017) – Proposed IPC Sections 153C & 505A.
• Private Member’s Bill (2022) in Rajya Sabha sought a comprehensive definition but was not enacted.
• Committees like Viswanathan (2015) and Bezbaruah (2014) also suggested legal reforms.

Significance of the Karnataka Bill

• First dedicated state law on hate speech
• Attempts to shift focus from public order to dignity and equality
• Recognisesdigital hate propagation
• Expands protection to LGBTQ+ communities and persons with disabilities