Details of hate speech
- Hate speech is not subject to any officially recognised legal restrictions in India.
- The Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and other laws that restrict the right to free expression have various clauses that forbid hate speech.
- Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees everyone the freedom of speech and expression, although this right is subject to “reasonable limits” for upholding, among other things, “public order, decency, or morality.”
Hate speech: What is it?
- There is disagreement over the specifics of “hateful” speech, and hate speech is not defined by international law.
- Any kind of communication—verbal, written, or physical—that disparages or targets a person or a group based on that person’s or that group’s religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender, or other identity factor is referred to as hate speech.
Indian Laws Against Hate Speech:
- The freedom guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution is based on responsible expression.
- Everyone in India has the right to free speech and expression, as stated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
- Hate speech is not specifically defined in India. However, as an exception to the right to free speech, some legal provisions in some statutes forbid some forms of expression.
Legislation that forbids hate speech
- the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860;
- Sedition is prohibited by Section 124A IPC.
- Under Section 153A IPC, both actions that incite hostility between distinct groups based on things like religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. as well as actions that thwart attempts to uphold harmony are prohibited.
- Imputations and pronouncements that are harmful to national integration are prohibited by Section 153B of the IPC.
- “Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to offend religious emotions of any class by insulting its religion or its beliefs” are prohibited, according to Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
- It is forbidden to make “utterances, comments, etc., with deliberate intent to offend the religious sensitivities of any person,” as stated in Section 298 of the IPC.
- It is illegal to print or spread any comment, rumour, or report that encourages animosity or enmity between classes, under Sections 505(1) and (2) of the IPC.
Several Supreme Court rulings:
Case of Rangila Rasool
- A Hindu publisher’s book titled Rangila Rasool was critical of the Prophet’s personal life.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned actions taken against the first pamphlet under Section 153A after questioning whether criticising religious figures was distinct from criticising beliefs.
- The colonial government passed Section 295A with a greater reach to address these problems as a result of this interpretation debate.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ramji Lal and Modi
- Section 295A’s constitutionality was contested.
- The law was maintained by the Supreme Court on the basis that it was put in place to maintain “public order.”
- The upkeep of public order is an exception to the Constitution’s accepted fundamental rights to freedom of speech, expression, and religion.
Madhya Pradesh State v. Ramlal Puri
- According to a 1973 Supreme Court decision, the question to ask is whether the speech in question offends the “common sense man” as opposed to the “hypersensitive man.”
- Even though the distinction varies from judge to judge and is usually difficult to understand, the court makes these decisions.
State of karnataka v. baragur ramachandra
- The Supreme Court highlighted its 2007 decision that Section 295A should be interpreted using “a reasonable approach.”
- The Kannada novel Dharmakaarana was outlawed by the state government under Section 295A and other laws after it was determined that it included hate speech.
Issues:
- Lower conviction rates demonstrate that these laws’ misuse provisions are typically punished by the means through which a police officer can make an arrest without a warrant.
- Critics claim that these rules are meant to “establish public order” by allowing the government to step in rather than to safeguard free speech.
- Legal ambiguity: When laws are enforced incorrectly, they occasionally use ambiguous, unclear language.
- The racially charged North India in the 1920s saw the passage of Section 295A of the Old-Age Laws.
Way Ahead:
- A particular social paradigm was in place when Section 295A was written, but as society has changed, the law must also adjust. If the past’s ghosts are still present in this law, it is not essential.
- In order to respect both the freedom to free expression and religious convictions, Section 295A must be changed.
- Group rights must be prioritised equally with individual rights.
Conclusion:
- Understanding that hate speech serves as the catalyst or beginning point for the marginalisation of a particular class of people through “fear of threat” is vital. It shouldn’t be permitted under the guise of free expression since it would contradict the core principles of Indian democracy.
