law commission report on hate speech upsc

Rights experts urge United Kingdom to curb hate speech

Facebook Twitter Print Email

The United Kingdom must take action to curb racist hate speech and xenophobic rhetoric, a UN human rights body said on Friday, following recent riots that rocked the country.  

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racism (CERD) voiced concern over persistent hate crimes, hate speech and xenophobic incidents on various platforms, including by politicians and public figures.

It was particularly concerned about recurring racist acts and violence by extremist far-right and white supremacist individuals and groups targeting ethnic and ethno-religious minorities, migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers.

Southport stabbing attack

This includes violent acts committed in late July and early August this year when riots broke out across the UK following a stabbing attack at a dance class in Southport that left three young girls dead and 10 other people injured.

The unrest was fuelled by disinformation shared on social media about the suspect.

In calling for action, the UN Committee urged the UK authorities to implement comprehensive measures to curb racist hate speech and xenophobic rhetoric, including on the part of political and public figures. 

Members emphasized the need for thorough investigations and strict penalties for racist hate crimes, and effective remedies for the victims and their families.

According to news reports, British courts have handed down hundreds of sentences to those who took part in the unrest, including to some who fueled the disorder through online posts. 

Police target ethnic minorities

The Committee also expressed concern about the disproportionate impact of police stop-and-search practices, including strip searches, on ethnic minorities, especially children. 

It also raised alarm over the use of excessive and deadly force by law enforcement, lack of accountability, and inadequate support for victims' families, all of which disproportionately affect people of African descent and other ethnic minorities.

Concerns surrounding institutional racism within policing and the criminal justice system were also highlighted.

Investigate racial profiling

The Committee urged the UK to set up an independent complaint mechanism to investigate allegations of racial profiling, stop-and-search practices, strip searches, and excessive use of force by the police. 

Furthermore, perpetrators should be prosecuted and punished, and victims and their families should have access to effective remedies. 

Additionally, decisive action to eliminate racial discrimination within policing and the criminal justice system, must be taken.

About the Committee

The Committee published its findings on the UK after concluding a four-year review of the country, alongside seven other nations including Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Venezuela.

The 18 international experts appointed to the Committee receive their mandates from the UN Human Rights Council , which is located in Geneva.

They are not UN staff and do not receive payment for their work.  

• United Kingdom
• Hate Speech

Try AI-powered search

• The case against “Russia’s Mark Zuckerberg” will have lasting effects

Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, may face prosecution in France

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

Editor’s note (August 28th 2024): This article was updated after Pavel Durov’s release from custody.

S oon after his private jet touched down on August 24th at Le Bourget airport, on the outskirts of Paris, Pavel Durov was arrested by French police. Next came a flurry of speculation as to the reasons behind the detention of the founder and boss of Telegram , a social-media platform. Elon Musk , the libertarian owner of X, framed it as part of a worldwide battle over free speech, posting that in Europe people will soon be “executed for liking a meme”. Others saw geopolitical motives, noting Telegram’s role in Russia’s war against Ukraine, both as a disseminator of information and a military communication tool.

On August 28th French prosecutors placed Mr Durov under formal investigation over Telegram’s alleged failure to control illicit activity on the app, including the distribution of child sexual-abuse material ( CSAM ), and its refusal to co-operate with law enforcement. His lawyer issued a statement saying that “Telegram is in conformity with every aspect of European norms on digital matters.” Mr Durov was released from custody but required to post bail of €5m ($5.5m) and will not be allowed to leave France.

Mr Durov—who has been dubbed Russia’s answer to Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook—left Russia ten years ago, complaining that he had been forced to sell his first social network, the Facebook-ish VKontakte, to Kremlin-friendly investors. He now lives in Dubai and is a citizen of the United Arab Emirates, St Kitts and Nevis, his native Russia—and France. Until recently he seldom spoke to the media, preferring to communicate via topless selfies on Instagram.

Telegram, which Mr Durov founded 11 years ago, is a small player in much of the West. But globally it is the eighth-largest social-media platform, claiming 900m monthly users, making it 50% bigger than X. Three-quarters of internet users in Russia have it (see chart). Telegram does not make money yet, but hopes to within the next year or so, after introducing advertising in 2021. Though often described as a messaging app, its “channels” with thousands of members make it a formidable broadcast platform. It occupies a “unique niche” in Russian media, says Gregory Asmolov of King’s College London, who says it is the only place where Russians can get news (both real and fake) about Ukraine.

Mr Durov is idolised by some free-speech advocates, who fear that the internet is increasingly targeted by censors. On August 27th Mr Zuckerberg revealed that in 2021 the American government “repeatedly pressured” his company to remove content related to covid-19, including humour and satire. The European Commission is investigating X for allegedly not complying with its rules on misinformation, and in Britain there are calls for stricter laws on the spread of malicious content after riots in the country.

But Telegram’s hands-off approach to moderation has allowed content to flourish that is straightforwardly illegal. A report last year by Stanford University’s Internet Observatory identified large groups sharing CSAM on the platform. Child exploitation is one area where there is little argument about free speech. “In practice, I do not think that the rules concerning CSAM are meaningfully different across Europe, the UK or the United States,” says David Kaye, a former UN rapporteur on freedom of expression now at the University of California, Irvine.

Although illegal material exists on all platforms, it is unclear what steps, if any, Telegram takes to remove it. The firm reportedly has a staff of around 50; Meta, Facebook’s parent company, has about 40,000 in its safety and security teams alone. “All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants,” the company’s website states.

For French prosecutors, Telegram may present a unique opportunity to track down online criminals. Although the platform bills itself as “more secure than mass market messengers like WhatsApp”, the reverse is true. Most messages on Telegram are not end-to-end encrypted, meaning that they are visible to the company—and any government that successfully ordered it to hand them over.

Telegram says it has never handed over information to any government. But recently Russia has discovered the identities of previously anonymous Telegram users, leading to prosecutions. Western governments, for their part, could be tempted to lean on Telegram for information on Russia. Even though it is not very secure, it is used operationally by the Russian military, which is short of alternatives, says Mr Asmolov of King’s College. Mr Durov has encouraged speculation that the American government might be interested in what happens on his platform. In April he gave a rare interview to Tucker Carlson, a right-wing American journalist, in which he complained of receiving “too much attention from the FBI ”, which he said had tried to recruit one of his engineers to install a back door into Telegram.

Whatever happens to Mr Durov, the episode is likely to be cited in future by governments seeking to defend their own crackdowns on social-media platforms, justified or not. Countries such as Turkey have demanded that social networks have local executives based in-country, in what some have called “hostage laws”. On August 17th X said that it would close its office in Brazil, after a judge there threatened an executive with arrest if the company did not comply with an order to take down content that the Brazilian courts considered misinformation and hate speech. The case against Mr Durov is set to have a lasting impact. ■

To stay on top of the biggest stories in business and technology, sign up to the Bottom Line , our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.

Explore more

This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline “A Russian in Paris”

Business August 31st 2024

From southwest to spirit, budget airlines are in a tailspin, how abercrombie & fitch got hot again, renault readies itself to take on chinese rivals, pinduoduo, china’s e-commerce star, suffers a blow, meta is accused of “bullying” the open-source community, four questions for every manager to ask themselves.

• What could stop the Nvidia frenzy?

From the August 31st 2024 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

More from Business

The woes of America’s low-cost carriers could soon be mirrored elsewhere

The once-troubled brand is now a favourite of millennials and gen-Zs alike

Luca de Meo is turning the carmaker around

It faces a slowing economy, stiffening competition and angry merchants

Prompts for bosses

It hopes its models will set the standard for open-source artificial intelligence

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Hate Speech

Last updated on October 29, 2022 by ClearIAS Team

Numerous events, including ones that occurred in a religious setting and on online forums, have targeted minority communities. This has brought attention to problems with the implementation of legislation to curb hate speech. What are the laws related to hate speech in India? Are there any new legal precedents on this menace? To know more, read further. 

In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) , the Supreme Court of India outlined its definition of hate speech as “an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group which seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.”

Hate speech, according to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), encompasses a wide range of expressions that encourage, incite, promote, or otherwise justify hatred, violence, or discrimination against an individual or a group of individuals for a number of different reasons.

The Law Commission of India’s 267th Report defines hate speech as an incitement to hatred directed principally towards a group of people who are identified by their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.

Table of Contents

What are the legal provisions related to Hate Speech in India?

• Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India puts reasonable restrictions on the Freedom of Speech including public order, decency or morality, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
• Section 153(a) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) punishes the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. with imprisonment up to 3 years.
• Section 153(b) of IPC punishes assertions prejudicial to national integration (e.g., asserting that a class of persons cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India) with imprisonment of up to 3 years.
• Section 295(a) of IPC punishes deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs with imprisonment for up to 3 years.
• Section 505(2) of IPC punishes statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill will between classes with imprisonment for up to 3 years.
• Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA) prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
• Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA b ar the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and include it under corrupt electoral practices.

Suggestions made by Law Commission

In its 267th report, the Law Commission of India proposed including the following two provisions:

• Section 153C covers  crimes committed when someone threatens someone with remarks meant to incite fear, hatred, or violence based on someone’s race, caste, religion, sex, gender identity, or other characteristics.
• Section 505A should be included and have provisions that make inciting fear, alarm, or violence a crime.

Interpretation of the Supreme Court related to Hate Speech

Following are the case laws wherein the Supreme court cleared its stand.

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan ⇓

(1) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims cum Mains

(2) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims Test Series

(3) ⇒ UPSC 2025: CSAT

Note: To know more about ClearIAS Courses (Online/Offline) and the most effective study plan, you can call ClearIAS Mentors at +91-9605741000, +91-9656621000, or +91-9656731000.

Ramji Lal Modi Case( 1957)

A five-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the validity of Section 295(A) in this case.

While Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression for the sake of public order, the Supreme Court reasoned, a more severe type of blasphemy that is done with the intent to outrage the religious sensibilities of any group is punishable under Section 295(A).

Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs Ram Manohar Lohia case (1960)

It was claimed that in order to invoke Section 295(A) of the IPC, a strong linkage must exist between the speech that was spoken and any public disorder that was brought about as a result of it.

In addition, it came to the conclusion in 2011 that only speech that amounted to “incitement to impending unlawful conduct” is punishable.

That is to say, a very high standard must be met before the state can use public disturbance as an excuse to censor expression.

S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram

In this decision, the Court ruled that the right to free speech cannot be restricted unless the situation it creates is one that endangers the community or the public interest, and that threat cannot be imagined, remote, or improbable.

If the expression is taken, there must be a close connection.

Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020)

According to the Supreme Court, “hate speech has no valid or redeeming motive other than hostility for a specific group.”

The Problem of over-criminalization of Hate Speech

In a dramatic and very personal turn of events in 2015, Indian novelist Perumal Murugan declared his creative “death,” pulled the entirety of his published works from circulation, and vowed never to write again.

This resulted from the violent backlash he received from religious and caste-based groups who claimed that his fifth book, “Madhorubagan” in Tamil, or “One Part Woman,” offended religious sensibilities, insulted the Kailasanathar temple, Lord Shiva, and female worshippers, among other allegations.

They also claimed that it appealed to prurient interest, among other things.

A Forward Approach

Many of the legal restrictions on hate speech that are in place today date back to the days before the Internet. Specialized law to control hate speech spread on the Internet and, notably, social media, is urgently needed.

It is possible to make reference to the Australian federal law known as the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 2019, which holds Internet service providers accountable if they know that any obscene or violent content—which is defined to include content that a reasonable man would find offensive—is accessible through the service they provide.

In the context of a “digital single market,” the European Union has also adopted a code of conduct to prevent the spread of hate speech. It calls for cooperative, autonomous, inclusive regulation that adheres to global best practices for content filtering and privacy rights while being tailored to local and cultural norms.

Actions usually performed in response to contemporary hate speech have a whack-a-mole effect, whereby the underlying desire to sow division or hatred among communities endures through digital or social media platforms irrespective arrest of the offenders.

By modifying the IPC and the Information Technology Act, it is crucial to implement precise and long-lasting legislative rules that prevent hate speech, especially that which is spread online and through social media.

In the end, only when hate speech is acknowledged as a justifiable limitation on free expression would this be feasible.

Click here to read more about the 100 Must-Know Acts Enacted by the Indian Parliament.

Article Written By: Jis John Sebastian 

Top 10 Best-Selling ClearIAS Courses

Upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: unbeatable batch 2025 (online), rs.75000   rs.29000, upsc prelims marks booster + 2025 (online), rs.19999   rs.14999, upsc prelims test series (pts) 2025 (online), rs.9999   rs.4999, csat course 2025 (online), current affairs course 2025 (online), ncert foundation course (online), essay writing course for upsc cse (online), ethics course for upsc cse (online), upsc interview marks booster course (online), rs.9999   rs.4999.

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

ClearIAS Programs: Admissions Open

Thank You 🙌

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan

Subscribe ClearIAS YouTube Channel

Get free study materials. Don’t miss ClearIAS updates.

Subscribe Now

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.

• बच्चा मेरा नहीं', पत्नी बोली DNA टेस्ट करवाओ, पति पहुंच गया हाई कोर्ट, जज साहब बोले- करवाना तो पड़ेगा
• Court rejects pre-arrest bail plea of Shiv Sena leader Waman Mhatre booked over ‘offensive’ remark on Reporter
• सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 83 हजार केस पेंडिंग, अबतक सबसे ज्यादा
• Women have sole right to Streedhan: SC bars Father from demanding return
• SC Constitution Bench Hearing on Appointment of Arbitrator (day 3)
• NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of the two reported incidents of food poisoning causing serious health problems to 70 students at Chittoor Apollo Health University and the death of three children and illness of 37 others at an orphanage in Anakapalli district, Andhra Pradesh
• NHRC, India takes suo motu cognizance of the reported death of several workers in an explosion at a private industrial unit in the Anakapalli district of Andhra Pradesh
• [Breaking] SC Collegium recommends Adv Tejas Karia, Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas as Judge for Delhi HC
• Job Post: Associate Lawyer at Kshetry & Associates [4 Positions; Kolkata & Mumbai; Salary Upto Rs. 5L LPA]: Apply by September 7!
• Delhi HC dismisses Shashi Tharoor’s plea to quash Defamation Case over ‘Scorpion on Shivling’ remark
• National Level Essay Writing Competition on Law and Economics by CNLU, Patna [Cash Prizes Upto Rs. 22k]: Register by September 3!
• Call for Blog: NyaayShastra Law Review by NLIU, Bhopal: Submissions on Rolling Basis
• OpenAI Defends AI Training Practices Amid Legal Challenges from Prominent Authors
• शशि थरूर को राहत नहीं: PM मोदी पर टिप्पणी मामले में हाईकोर्ट से झटका, याचिका पर दिया ये आदेश
• Lawyer files complaint against Mamata Banerjee over ‘if you burn’ warning to PM Modi

• Central Acts
• Latest News
• Corporate Law News
• Human Rights News
• Intellectual Property News
• Did you Know?
• International News
• हिंदी न्यूज़
• Law Firm News
• Marriage and Divorce News
• Tourism News
• World of Petroleum & Natural Gas
• Case Analysis Supreme Court High Courts Tribunal Courts
• Cheque Bounce News
• Legal Services News
• Petroleum News

Supreme Court Judgments

• Supreme Court

High Court Judgments

• Delhi High Court
• Allahabad High Court
• Bombay High Court
• Calcutta High Court
• Madras High Court
• Punjab & Haryana High Court
• Andhra High Court
• Chattisgarh High Court
• Gauhati High Court
• Gujarat High Court
• Himachal Pradesh High Court
• Jammu & Kashmir High Court
• Jharkhand High Court
• Karnataka High Court
• Kerala High Court
• Madhya Pradesh High Court
• Meghalaya High Court
• Manipur High Court
• Orissa High Court
• Patna High Court
• Rajasthan High Court
• Sikkim High Court
• Tripura High Court
• Telangana High Court
• Uttarakhand High Court
• Arbitration
• Conciliation

Campus Buzz

• Call for Papers
• Conferences & Seminars
• Courses & Workshops
• Debate Competitions
• Essay Competitions
• Fellowships
• Fests, MUNs and Other Competitions
• International Opportunities
• Internships
• Moot Court Competitions
• Scholarships
• Legal Documents
• Legal Forms for Advocates
• Legal Dictionary
• SC Collegium Resolutions
• Law Commission of India Reports
• NCRB Reports
• Justice Verma Committee Report, 2013
• Justice BN Srikrishna Report on Institutionalisation of Arbitration
• Legal Maxims
• Web Links Directory

Legal Education

• Law School Entrance Exams
• Law Schools and Colleges in India
• Overseas Law Schools
• Careers in Law

Circulars & Notices

• RBI Circulars
• RBI Notices
• SEBI Circulars
• SEBI Notices
• MCA Circulars
• MCA Notices
• Supreme Court Calendar 2023
• Supreme Court Bar Association
• Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record
• All High Courts Calendar
• High Courts Portals
• Judicial Exam Notice Board
• Judicial Services Exam Question Papers
• Bar Councils
• Bar Associations

Law Commission Report No. 267- Hate Speech

• Court Calendar

Law Commission Report No. 267- Hate Speech by Latest Laws Team on Scribd

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

LatestLaws Partner Event : Legal Convention 2024 on 28th-29th Sept

LatestLaws Partner Event : 3rd Arbitrate In India Conclave 2024

LatestLaws Partner Event : 2nd Dr Patangrao Kadam Memorial National Moot Court Competition.png

• Server 3 Live-in Relationship and Evolution of India Jurisprudence  
• Slider 2 US Supreme Court rules against Immigrants with Temporary Status
• slider1 It’s time to define limits of sedition, says Supreme Court

Adil Ladha joins Saraf and Partners, as a Partner in Corporate practice in the Firm’s Mumbai Office

Saraf and Partners Elevates Six Lawyers to Partnership and Partner Designate, Strengthening Leadership and Expertise

Saraf and Partners and BOB Capital Markets Limited advised TJSB Sahakari Co-operative Bank on policy for sale of security receipts

Issue of Hate Speech: Law Commission Report No. 267

“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Understanding the term “Hate Speech”

Responsible speech is the essence of the liberty granted under article 21 of the Constitution. One of the greatest challenges before the principle of autonomy and free speech principle is to ensure that this liberty is not exercised to the detriment of any individual or the disadvantaged section of the society. In a country like India, with diverse castes, creed, religions and languages, this issue poses a greater challenge. Under International Human Rights Law, there is no universal definition of hate speech as the concept is still widely disputed with regard to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination, and equality.

According to Merriam Webster dictionary, “ hate speech is a speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people” .

Collins dictionary defines hate speech as “ speech disparaging a group on the grounds of colour, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, or a person who identifies with such a group ”.

As per the oxford dictionary , “ hate speech is speech or writing that attacks or threatens a particular group of people, especially based on race, religion, or sexual orientation ”.

Black’s Law Dictionary has defined it as “ speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence .”

Whereas the Cambridge dictionary describes hate speech as “ public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (the fact of being gay, etc.) .”

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

To provide a unified framework for the UN system to address the issue globally, the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“ any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factors .”

European Convention on Human Rights : Similarly, Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides reasonable duties and restrictions during the exercise of one’s fundamental right to free speech.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): As per Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, the right of freedom of speech can be regulated in order to honour the rights of others and in the interest of public order, public health or morals.

Article 20(2) of the ICCPR also declares that any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prevented by law.

Recent Developments Around Hate Speech

• Reference from the Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1591 , observed that the issue of hate speech deserves deeper scrutiny by the Law Commission of India and also to consider, if it deems proper, defining the expression hate speech and make recommendations to parliament to strengthen the election commission to curb the menace of hate speech irrespective of whenever made.”
• High case filling rate with a low conviction rate: According to the National Crime Records Bureau data, cases filed under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 153A (promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language) saw almost 500 percent increase between 2014 and 2020. The number of cases from 323 in 2014 raised to 1804 in 2020. On the other hand, the conviction rate of only around 20% in ‘hate speech cases in the year 2020 is almost 1/3rd of the conviction rate of all cognizable IPC crimes. In other words, the conviction rate of ‘hate speech’ related cases is among the lowest of all IPC crimes.

Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech 

Hate speech has not been defined in any law in India. However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech. Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution of India guarantees the right to speech and expression. But there cannot be any right that is injurious to the community as a whole. If people were given complete and absolute liberty without any social control the result would be ruined ( Wills- Constitutional Law and the United States, 477).

Justice Patanjali Shastri in A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1951 SC 21 observed, “ man as a rational being desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by the other individuals .”

The Constitution acknowledges that liberty cannot be absolute or uncontrolled and makes provisions in clauses (2) to (6) of article 19 authorising the State to restrict the exercise of the freedom guaranteed under that article within the limits specified in those clauses. Thus, clause (2) of article 19, as subsequently amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 and the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, enabled the legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interests of (i) the security of the State and sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iii)public order, (iv) decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Legal Provisions of Hate Speech In India

At present India have the following legislations that deal with hate speech, namely:-

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 124A IPC penalises sedition
• Section 153A IPC penalises ‘the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
• Section 153B IPC penalises ‘imputations, and assertions prejudicial to national integration.
• Section 295A IPC penalises ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
• Section 298 IPC penalises ‘uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.
• Section 505(1) and (2) IPC penalise publication or circulation of any statement, rumour, or report causing public mischief and enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes.
• The Representation of the People Act,1951  
• According to Section 8 of the Act, a person shall be disqualified from contesting the election if he is convicted of including in acts amounting to the illegitimate use of freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 123(3A) and section 125 prohibit the promotion of enmity on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language in connection with an election as a corrupt electoral practice and prohibits it.
• The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
• Section 7 penalises incitement to, and encouragement of untouchability through words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise.
• The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act,1988
• Section 3(g) prohibits religious institution or its manager to allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution for promoting or attempting to promote disharmony, feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.  
• The Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995
• Sections 5 and 6 of the Act prohibits transmission or re-transmission of a programme through a cable network in contravention to the prescribed programme code or advertisement code. These codes have been defined in rules 6 and 7 respectively of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994.
• The Cinematography Act, 1952
• Sections 4, 5B, and 7 empower the Board of Film Certification to prohibit and regulate the screening of a film.  
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 95 empowers the State Government, to forfeit publications that are punishable under sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 292, 293, or 295A IPC.
• Section 107 empowers the Executive Magistrate to prevent a person from committing a breach of the peace or disturbing the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably cause a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity.
• Section 144 empowers the District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government on this behalf to issue the order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. The above offences are cognizable. Thus, have serious repercussions on the liberties of citizens and empowers a police officer to arrest without orders from a magistrate and without a warrant as in section 155 CrPC.

Criteria for Hate Speech

Not all types of speeches are hate speech. Only certain types of speeches are presumed to be hated in nature. There are certain parameters through which one can distinguish between speech, discussion, advocacy, and incitement. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523 , had differentiated between three forms of speech, discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It was held by the Court that a speech can only be limited on grounds of exceptions mentioned in article 19(2) when it reaches the threshold of incitement. All other forms of speech, even if offensive or unpopular have to be protected under article 19(1) (a). Incitement is the key to determining the constitutionality of a restriction on free speech.

Many parameters have been developed by the courts of different jurisdictions to identify hate speech. Some of them are summarised s below:

• The extremity of the speech

A speech can be termed hate speech if it is offensive and it projects an extreme form of emotion. The supreme court of the United States in the case chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S 568(1942) held that the expressions of advocacy and discussion of sensitive and unpopular issues have been termed ‘low-value speech’ unqualified for constitutional protection.

The element of incitement to discriminate is the basic factor of hate speech. A speech can be classified as hate speech if it has an intention to incite the public to discriminate the others based on race, caste, gender, religion, etc. the supreme court of India in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India observed that the speech must amount to incitement in order to be restricted.  It is important to mention here that incitement to not only violence but also discrimination has been recognized as a ground for interfering with freedom of expression.

• Status of the author of the speech

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recognized that position of the author of the speech is important in determining the legality of limitations imposed by the State. The Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India AIR 2014 SC 1591 was approached to sanction hate speech. The petitioners sought the court’s intervention to declare “hate speeches” delivered by elected representatives, and political and religious leaders as unconstitutional. The petition was specifically addressed to the people who held power to influence society on a large scale. The Court recognizing the negative impact of hate speech referred the matter to Law Commission for an in-depth examination.

• Status of the victim of the speech

The status of the targeted audience is also important to determine whether the speech can be restricted or not. The limits of acceptable criticism are wider for a politician as such than regard a private individual.  

• Potentiality of the speech

The potentiality of speech and how much impact it has on the minds of the public is also an important element. In Ramesh v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 775 Supreme Court examined the validity of the restriction based on the potential of the movie to impact the audience.

• Context of the speech

  Not all speech is hate speech. The context of the speech determines the permissibility of the speech.

Test For Restraining the Freedom of Speech And Expression

International human rights law developed a three-part test that determines whether a particular type of speech should be curtailed or not. The following standards should be satisfied before curtailing the human right:

• Prescription by law: as per this rule, the restriction imposed must be prescribed by law. The means by which the right is curtailed should be passed through the appropriate procedures and through explicit provisions of the law.
• Legitimate aims: The measure must directly satisfy a legitimate aim.
• Necessity and proportionality: there must be a need for such a measure. The restriction cannot be imposed for any reason. There should be an urgent need to restrict any rights. Also, the restriction must not do any more damage to the right than is necessary to meet its aim.

Judicial Perspective on Hate Speech

The Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004), emphasised the need to sustain communal harmony to ensure the welfare of the people. In the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan case, the Supreme Court pointed out the impact hate speech can have on the targeted group’s ability to respond and how it can be a stimulus to further attacks.  In G. Thirumurugan Gandhi v. State (2019) , the Madras High Court explained that hate speeches cause discord between classes and that the responsibility attached to free speech should not be forgotten.

In 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”. In the matter of Arup Bhuyan vs the State of Assam, The Court held that a mere act cannot be punished unless an individual resorted to violence or incited any other person to violence. In the case of S. Rangarajan Etc. vs P. Jagjivan Ram ,  the Court held that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless the situation so created are dangerous to the community/ public interest wherein this danger should not be remote, conjectural, or far-fetched. There should be a proximate and direct nexus with the expression so used.

Non-legal Measures to Tackle Hate Speech

To address the issue of hate speech many non-legal measures should be taken. Some of them are as follows:

• Television dramas that promote harmony between warring communities should be promoted.
• The religious heads should be involved to build empathy across religions so that the social tension can be reduced.
• Strategic interventions should be made by the government especially in the context of social media so that the dissemination of hate speech and mob mobilisation can be monitored.
• To aware people to stop spreading harmful rumours.

India is culturally rich country. Any attempt to allow hate speech can marginalise classes and groups of persons who are already in a minority due to their race, language, and religion. The already existing laws are not sufficient to deal with instances of hate speech. The law commission in its 267th report made recommendations for provisions for prohibiting incitement of hate speech and prohibiting causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence through such speech. The report was published in the year 2017 although no development so far.  The idea of criminalization of hate speech and how the existing laws look at it needs attention for bringing the right change. Since it is entrenched in the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression, “hate speech” has been manipulated by many in different ways to achieve their ulterior motive under the garb of such right and the law courts in absence of clear provisions in IPC, are not able to prosecute hate speech charges brought before them with success. There is no general legal definition of hate speech. The law in this regard is awaiting development.

About the author

CHIRAYU SHARMA

Joint Secretary, Student Research & Reporting Board

You may also like

On adverse possession of land, no need to change the law, recommends Law Commission

International Perspective on Laws related to Miscarriage of Justice and Position in India: Law Commission Report 277

Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies:Law Commission Report no. 277

Sections of website.

• Acts of Parliament 71
• BAR COUNCILS & COURTS 6
• BILLS/LAWS 11
• CALL AND CONFERENCE 98
• CALL FOR PAPERS 38
• CITIZEN CONNECT 31
• COMMERCIAL LAW 1
• COMMITTEES 1
• COMPANY LAW 1
• COMPETITON LAW 8
• CONFERENCE 45
• CONFERENCE AND OTHER EVENTS 125
• CORPORATE LEGAL PRACTICE 123
• ENVIRONMENT 10
• FAMILY & PROPERTY LAW 4
• GUEST AUTHOR 13
• HALL OF FAME 13
• HEALTH & EDUCATION 2
• IN THE NEWS 305
• INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 7
• INTERSHIPS & OPPORTUNTIES 53
• LATEST UPDATES 362
• LAW BOOKS 12
• LAW COLLEGES 15
• LAW COMMISSION 7
• LAW EXAMS 11
• LAW FIRMS 51
• LAW LIBRARY 18
• LEGAL LUMINARIES 11
• LEGAL QUERIES 4
• LEGAL SYSTEM UPDATE 91
• MINISTRY FOR COMMITTEE AND REPORTS 16
• NATIONAL 32
• NOTIFICATIONS 58
• PHOTO GALLERY 109
• PRESS RELEASE 82
• PUBLICATIONS OF ILW 1
• RECENT AMENDMENTS 2
• STATE LAW UPDATES 283
• STUDENTS CORNER 57
• STUDENTS HALL OD FAME 1
• SUPREME COURT UPDATES 376
• SURVEY OF ILW 1
• TECHNOLOGY & COMMUNICATION 2
• TRAININGS 23
• UNCATEGORIZED 49

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy

Hate Speech - UPSC Notes

Hate speech is a term frequently seen in the daily news. It is important to understand the meaning of the term and its implications for Indian polity and society. In this article, you can read all about the term ‘hate speech’ and the legalities involved in it, for the  UPSC 2023 .

Hate Speech:- Download PDF Here

Aspirants would find this article very helpful while preparing for the  IAS Exam .

Hate Speech Meaning

Hate speech refers to words whose intent is to create hatred towards a particular group, that group may be a community, religion or race. This speech may or may not have meaning, but is likely to result in violence.

• The primary reason for the propagation of hate speech by individuals is that they believe in stereotypes that are ingrained in their minds and these stereotypes lead them to believe that a class or group of persons are inferior to them and as such cannot have the same rights as them.
• The stubbornness to stick to a particular ideology without caring for the right to co-exist peacefully adds further fuel to the fire of hate speech.
• In order to determine whether a particular instance of speech is a hate speech or not, the context of the speech plays an important role.
• The Court in the State of Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damodar Rupawat observed that the effect of the words used in the offending material must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.
• The existence of hate speech is not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination but the creation of multiple platforms, especially social media has led to hate speech not only increasing but also becoming more vile and abhorrent.
• The amount of hate that is perpetuated through social media platforms like Facebook has been well documented.
• The most prominent instance in this regard has been the persecution of Rohingya Muslims by Myanmar’s military junta.
• Multiple investigative journalists have laid bare the connection between the call for violence against Rohingyas on Facebook and the unabashed killings in Myanmar.

Hate Speech – Position in India

Freedom of Speech and Expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution as a fundamental right but this right is not absolute and as such restrictions are imposed on this right under Article 19(2).

• It has to be understood that the right to free speech ends where hate speech begins.
• Under the pretext of exercising inherent rights, many commit the crime of hate speech, leading to an air of distrust and terror.
• It must be appreciated that liberty is there for all. If in the name of free speech, a ‘hate speech’ is delivered which marginalises certain people, then the liberty of those people is snatched away.
• In the 267th Report of the Law Commission of India, it was stated that “Liberty and equality are contemporary and not antithetical to each other. The intention of having the freedom of speech is not to disregard the weaker sections of society but to give them an equal voice. The intent of equality is not to restrain this liberty but to balance it with the necessities of a multicultural and plural world, provided such constraint does not unduly infringe on the freedom of expression. Thus, incitement to not only violence but also to discrimination has been recognized as a ground for interfering with freedom of expression.”

Aspirants can go through the relevant links given below for their exam preparation-

The penal provisions which relate to this aspect are as follows:

• Sections 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) punish acts that cause enmity and hatred between two groups.
• Section 295A of the IPC deal with punishing acts which deliberately or with malicious intention outrage the religious feelings of a class of persons.
• Sections 505(1) and 505(2) make the publication and circulation of content which may cause ill-will or hatred between different groups an offence.
• Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA)  prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
• Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA bar the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and includes it under corrupt electoral practices.

FAQ about Hate Speech

Is hate speech free speech in india, give examples of hate speech..

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Insights IAS Brochure |
• OUR CENTERS Bangalore Delhi Lucknow Mysuru --> Srinagar Dharwad Hyderabad

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2025
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude
• Insights IAS Brochure

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology

Hate Speech

Context: The Supreme Court of India has directed all states to register FIRs (First Information Reports) against hate speech incidents and proceed against the offenders without waiting for someone to lodge a complaint.

About Hate Speech:

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology

General Studies

All Programmes

Study Material

Hate Speech in India

What’s in today’s article?

Why in news, about hate speech, article 19 and hate speech, legal provisions of hate speech, important judgements, guidelines issued by supreme court to curb misuse of legal provisions w.r.t. hate speech, suggestions, news summary.

• Two-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that defining hate speech is complex but the real problem in tackling hate speech lies in the implementation and execution of law and judicial pronouncements.

• Hate speech covers many forms of expressions which advocate, incite, promote or justify hatred, violence and discrimination against a person or group of persons for a variety of reasons.
• It poses grave dangers for the cohesion of a democratic society, the protection of human rights and the rule of law.
• If left unaddressed, it can lead to acts of violence and conflict on a wider scale.
• In this sense hate speech is an extreme form of intolerance which contributes to hate crime.
• Article 19(2) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens of India .
• This article is subjected to certain restrictions, namely, sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
• Provisions in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 authorizes the State to restrict the exercise of the freedom guaranteed under the article .
• Hate speech has not been defined in any law in India .
• However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech.
• Under Section 153A of IPC , ‘ promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’, is an offence punishable with three years’ imprisonment .
• Section 505 of IPC makes it an offence to making “statements conducing to public mischief”.
• Section 8 disqualifies a person from contesting election if he is convicted for indulging in acts amounting to illegitimate use of freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 7 penalizes incitement to, and encouragement of untouchability through words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise.
• Section 3(g) prohibits religious institution or its manager to allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution for promoting or attempting to promote disharmony, feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.
• In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India , the Supreme Court held that the implementation of existing laws would solve the problem of hate speech to a great extent .
• However, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution regarding speeches delivered during election campaign does not qualify as public interest litigation and that the Court cannot legislate on matters where the legislative intent is visible.
• In Tahseen Poonawalla vs Union of India (2018) , the Supreme Court had issued comprehensive guidelines to the Union and State Governments regarding prevention of mob violence, lynching.
• Again, in Kodungallur Film Society case (2018) , directions were issued to control vandalism by protesting mobs.
• Fast-tracked trials,
• Victim compensation,
• Deterrent punishment,
• Disciplinary action against lax law-enforcing officials,
• Nodal officers to be appointed to take note of hate crimes and register FIRs across the nation.
• The Law Commission has proposed that separate offences be added to the IPC to criminalize hate speech more specifically instead of being subsumed in the existing sections concerning inflammatory acts and speeches.
• 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.
• A bench of the Supreme Court was hearing a plea against the rallies being organized by Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal in Delhi-NCR region over the communal clashes in Haryana along with other petitions against hate speeches.
• The Court observed that defining hate speech is complex but the real problem in tackling them lies in the implementation and execution of law and judicial pronouncements.
• The bench told the petitioner that a solution to hate speeches can be found through collective efforts alone.
• The bench said that the Supreme Court has specified what hate speech is in the 2018 verdict in Tehseen Poonawalla case and no one can justify hate speech against any community .
• The bench said there should be a mechanism so that no one has come to the Supreme Court time and again.

Q1) When did IPC come into force?

The objective of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is to provide a general penal code for India. It was enacted on 6 October 1860 . It was drafted by the first Law Commission which was chaired by Thomas Babington Macaulay .

Q2)  Is Fundamental Right under Article 19 available to non-citizens in India?

The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, and 30 are available only to citizens of India.

Source:   Definition of hate speech complex, real problem is implementation and execution of law: SC

© 2024 Vajiram & Ravi. All rights reserved

• Skip to main content
• High Contrast
• Normal Contrast
• Highlight Links
• Font Size Increase
• Font Size Decrease
• Normal Font
• Text Spacing
• Line Height
• Screen Reader
• विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार
• Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India

[email protected]

• Our Centers Delhi Bhubaneswar Lucknow

CURRENT AFFAIRS FOR UPSC IAS

Supreme Court’s Directives for Spreading hate comments on a Public platform

Published: 29th Sep, 2022

The Supreme Court recently criticized the manner in which television channels conduct debates, observing that a methodology should be laid down for such discussions to ensure that they do not fuel hate speech.

What is hate speech?

• In common language, “hate speech” loosely refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics - such as race, religion, or gender - and that may threaten social peace.
• According to the 267 th Report of the Law Commission of India , Hate Speech is stated as an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like.

Hate Speech and the law:

• Under the existing laws, neither hate speech has been defined, nor is there any specific provision to curb it.
• Section 153A IPC penalizes 'the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
• Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), punishes any speech, writings, or signs that “with premeditated and malicious intent” insult citizens’ religion or religious beliefs with a fine and imprisonment for up to three years.
• Though the clamour for a specific anti-hate speech provision in law has steadily grown, defining what constitutes "hate speech" may be tricky, with the risk of an expansive law being used by the authorities to curb free expression.

Recent Observations of SC

• SC criticized the centre for being a “mute witness” to hate speech incidents and asked it to assist the court in addressing the problem.
• SC chastised the Centre for not being “proactive ” in addressing the rising phenomenon of hate speech and instead treating it as a “trivial matter”.
• Mainstream TV channels still hold sway. The role of the anchor is critical and it’s their duty to see that hate speech doesn’t occur. Many a time those who want to speak are muted.
• The bench underlined that “hate drives TRPs, drives profit” and said it will consider laying down some guidelines which will hold the field until the legislature comes up with a law on the matter.

Other observations

• Hate speech poses complex challenges to freedom of speech and expression.
• In the US, hate speech is given wide constitutional protection, whereas under international human rights covenants and in other western democracies, such as Canada, Germany, and the UK, it is regulated and subject to sanctions.

SC Suggestions:

• SC suggested that the vacuum in legislation be filled with guidelines , as was done in the Vishaka case.
• Guidelines in the Vishaka case remained effective for more than two decades before the law on sexual harassment at the workplace was notified.
• Simultaneously, the bench added, it would explore devising a methodology on how TV debates should be conducted so that they do not further hate speech.

Related Data:

• According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there has been a huge increase in cases registered to promote hate speech and foster animosity in society.
• As there were only 323 cases registered in 2014, it had increased to 1,804 cases in 2020.
• NCRB data suggests, that there is a 500% rise in cases filed under hate-speech law in seven years.

Law Commission’s recommendations:

Law Commission of India's 267 th report suggested the following amendments to the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Insert a new IPC Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) following Section 153B
• Insert Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) following Section 505 IPC.

Way Forward

• Strict implementation of the safeguards available.
• Reduce the instances of sections getting misused.
• Introduced necessary amendments to clear the ambiguity and subjectivity contained in sections

More Articles

Verifying, please be patient.

Our Centers

DELHI (Karol Bagh)

GS SCORE, 1B, Second Floor, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 (Beside Karol Bagh Metro Station Gate No. 8)

Get directions on Google Maps

BHUBANESWAR (Jaydev Vihar)

GS SCORE, Plot No.2298, Jaydev Vihar Square, Near HCG Day Care, BBSR - 751013

LUCKNOW (Aliganj)

GS SCORE, 2nd Floor, B-33, Sangam Chauraha, Sector H, Aliganj, Lucknow, UP - 226024

Delhi (Karol Bagh) Centre

GS SCORE, Second Floor, Metro Tower, 1B, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 (Beside Karol Bagh Metro Station Gate No. 8)

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +91 8448496262

Classroom / online / Live programs

• Mains Classes
• Mains Advance Classes
• Ethics & Essay Classes
• IAS Foundation
• Aadhar:NCERT Foundation
• Target PT:Prelims Classes
• Current Affairs Mentorship Program
• Optional Classes
• Optional Q&A (TEST SERIES & Mentorship)
• Mains Previous Year Questions

TEST SERIES/ MENTORSHIP

• ITS:Integrated Test Series & Mentorship
• GS Mains Q&A (Mentorship & Test Series)
• GS Test Series
• Ethics & Essay Test Series
• Samarth - Mains Answer Writing

STUDY MATERIAL

• Prelims Study Material
• Mains Study Material
• Mains Answer Writing Workbook
• Meet the Mentor
• Terms & Conditions
• © 2024 - IAS SCORE

All Rights Reserved.

Welcome to our secure login portal. Access your account with ease.

• Using Password

Not registered yet? register here!

Welcome to our secure register portal. For a brighter future, register now and unlock endless learning opportunities.

User Register

Already have an account? Login

Oops, forgot your password? Don't worry, we've got you covered. Reset it here

Lost your login details? No problem! forgot your password in just a few clicks

Forgot Password

Verify your mobile number, you have successfully logged in.

Join Us on WhatsApp

Your Preparation Partner

Law Commission against Hate Speech

• Commission has cautioned the government that hate speech is considered outside the realm of protective discourse and has urged for the expansion of the penal law against hate crimes.
• It held that indisputably, offensive hate speech has real and devastating effects on people’s lives and risks their health and safety.
• It is also harmful and divisive for communities and hampers social progress. If left unchecked, it can severely affect right to life of every individual.
• The commission has drafted a new law The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2017 by inserting new Sections to fortify democracy against hate speeches.
• The law defined hate speech as any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.
• Its Section 153C penalises incitement to hatred and Section 505A for the first time makes ‘causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases’ a specific criminal offence.
• Section 153C calls for punishing guilty person with two years’ imprisonment or Rs. 5,000 in fine or both. Section 505A provides a punishment of one year imprisonment or Rs. 5,000 in fine or both.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Home > Daily-current-affairs

Daily-current-affairs / 02 Jan 2022

Hate Speech : Daily Current Affairs

Relevance: GS-1: Social empowerment, communalism, regionalism & secularism.

Key phrases: Hate Speech, IPC, Law Commission, Section 153A, Section 505,

Why in News?

• A recent religious conclave held in Haridwar witnessed inflammatory and provocative speeches by proponents of Hindutva, many of them leaders of religious organisations. Reports say many of the speakers called for organised violence against Muslims and hinted at a Myanmar-type ‘cleansing campaign’ . 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.

What is 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’.
• The Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report, says: “Hate speech generally is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like ...
• Thus, hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.”
• 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.

How is it treated in Indian law?

• Sections 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are generally taken to be the main penal provisions that deal with inflammatory speeches and expressions that seek to punish ‘hate speech’.
• Under Section 153A, ‘promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’, is an offence punishable with three years’ imprisonment. It attracts a five-year term if committed in a place of worship, or an assembly engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies.
• Section 505 of IPC makes it an offence to making “statements conducing to public mischief”. The statement, publication, report or rumour that is penalised under Section 505(1) should be one that promotes mutiny by the armed forces, or causes such fear or alarm that people are induced to commit an offence against the state or public tranquillity; or is intended to incite or incites any class or community to commit an offence against another class or community.

What has the Law Commission proposed?

• The Law Commission has proposed that 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, Section153C and Section 505A, be added. Its draft says Section 153C should make it an offence if anyone
• Uses gravely threatening words, spoken or written or signs or visible representations, with the intention to cause fear or alarm ; or
• 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.
• 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 .

Judicial Interpretations on Hate Speech:

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 2015 : Issues were raised about Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relating to the fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, where the Court differentiated between discussion, advocacy, and incitement and held that the first two were the essence of Article 19(1).
• Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam 2011: The Court held that a mere act cannot be punished unless an individual resorted to violence or inciting any other person to violence.
• S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram 1989: In this case, the Court held that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless the situation so created are dangerous to the community/ public interest wherein this danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. There should be a proximate and direct nexus with the expression so used.

Effective way to tackle Hate speech in India:

• The most efficient way to dilute hatred is by the means of Education. Our education system has a prominent role to play in promoting and understanding compassion with others.
• Awareness programs and initiatives about maintaining cordial relationship must be taken by not only the government but also by private people.
• Although there are many laws regarding hate speeches but stricter penalizing is required as religious sentiments and beliefs are a precious thing for an individual.
• Fight against hate speech cannot be isolated. It should be discussed on a wider platform such as the United Nations . Every responsible government, regional bodies, and other international and regional actors should respond to this threat.
• Cases of hate speech can be addressed through Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms as it proposes a shift from the long procedures of the court to the settlement of the dispute between parties by way of negotiation, mediation, arbitration and/or conciliation.

Way Forward:

• As victims of hate speech they fear and are indeed nervous to enter public spaces or participate in the discourse. This brings a change in their behaviour, such intangible effects of hate speech on people are the most insidious and damaging to their right to live with dignity.
• This issue should be strictly and earnestly addressed with tougher laws and their stricter implementation. As a people who have been existing on the basis of unity in diversity , societal sensitisation is necessary and nothing can be more useful than social media
• If done, we in fact are acting true to the Preambular values like ‘ fraternity and dignity of the individual’ apart from Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties enshrined in our Constitution

Source: The Hindu

Mains Question:

Q. A recent religious conclave held in Haridwar witnessed inflammatory and provocative speeches by proponents of Hindutva. It brought again hate speech as an issue of immediate public concern in India. With reference to this incident briefly explain Hate Speech ? How does Hate Speech pose complex challenges to freedom of speech and expression? Illustrate.

Click Here for Daily Current Affairs MCQ Quiz

Recent article.

Get in Touch

Social links.

Connect with social account.

Test Series

Dhyeya Educational Services Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. A-12,13, Flat No. 201, 2nd Floor, Ansal Building, Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi 110009

Dhyeya IAS © 2024 | All rights reserved | Developed & Maintained by WNT / Sitemap.xml

Enquiry Now

No specific law against hate speech: EC

ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 10th August. Click Here for more information.

Source : The post is based on the article  “No specific law against hate speech: EC ”  published in  The Hindu  on  15 th  September 2022 .

What is the News?

The Election Commission of India (ECI) in the Supreme Court has said that due to the lack of a specific law against hate speech and rumour during polls.

About the case on hate speech and rumour during polls

The Supreme Court asked a specific query to the Law Commission whether the ECI ought to be conferred with the power to derecognise a political party for committing the “offence of hate speech”. But the Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report on hate speech, had not made any recommendations with regard to the query.

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Centre to take appropriate steps to implement recommendations of the Law Commission Report 267 on hate speech.

How does the ECI regulate hate speech and rumour during polls?

Firstly , the ECI has resorted to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Representation of the People (RP) Act to ensure that members of political parties do not make statements which can create disharmony in society.

Secondly , in the Abhiram Singh case, the court held that “any appeal to vote or refrain from voting for a candidate on the grounds of religion, caste, race, community or language by a candidate or his agent to the electors would amount to corrupt practice under the 1951 Act”.

Based on the judgement, the ECI asked the political parties to desist from making hate statements. Hate speech and communal statements by candidates or their agents could be raised in election petitions.

Note : According to the ECI, hate speeches were “often interconnected with appeals to religion, caste, community, etc, during election campaigning.

Thirdly , the Model Code of Conduct had no “legal sanctity.” But the ECI had introduced guidelines in the Code asking political parties to desist from making communal statements. In case any complaints were made, the ECI said it took “strict note” of it.

Type your email…

Search Articles

Prelims 2024 current affairs.

• Art and Culture
• Indian Economy
• Science and Technology
• Environment  & Ecology
• International Relations
• Polity &  Nation
• Important Bills and Acts
• International Organizations
• Index, Reports and Summits
• Government Schemes and Programs
• Miscellaneous
• Species in news

All India Open Test(Simulator X)

• Daily Practice Sheets
• Daily Prelims Notes
• Prelims Power Play
• Mains Factly
• Sunday Essay Sadhna
• Laqshya 2025
• ARJUNA PRIME 2025
• Daily Answer Writing
• Mains Master Notes
• Important Topics List for Prelims 2024
• Daily Prelims Notes Compilation
• Daily Practice Sheet Compilation
• PPP Compilation
• General Studies Notes
• UPSC Mains Previous Year Papers
• Portal Login

Hate Speech

• January 2, 2022
• Posted by: OptimizeIAS Team
• Category: DPN Topics

Subject – Polity

Context – A recent religious conclave held in Haridwar witnessed inflammatory and provocative speeches by proponents of Hindutva, many of them leaders of religious organisations

• 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’.
• Thus, hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.”
• 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.
• Sections 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are generally taken to be the main penal provisions that deal with inflammatory speeches and expressions that seek to punish ‘hate speech’.
• The Law Commission has proposed that 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.
• 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 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.