Karnataka’s Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance

Context

• The State Cabinet approved the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, to effectively curb, prevent, dissemination, publication or promotion of hate speech and hate crimes, which cause disharmony and hatred in society.

Key Features of the Bill

• Purpose and Scope: It seeks to prevent dissemination, publication, and promotion of hate speech and hate crimes.
  • It aims to curb actions causing injury, disharmony, enmity, or hatred against individuals, groups, or organisations.
  • It is applicable to both persons and institutions.
• Hate speech includes any expression which is made, published, or circulated in words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication in public view, with an intention to cause injury, disharmony, or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will against a person alive or dead, a class or group of persons, or a community to meet any prejudicial interest.
  • The prejudicial interest includes religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe.
• The punishment for hate crime includes imprisonment from one to seven years and a fine of ₹50,000.
  • The offences are cognisable, non-bailable, and triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
• Alignment with Central Laws: The Bill incorporates provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for procedural uniformity.
• The designated officer of the State government would be empowered to direct any service provider, intermediaries, person or entity to block or remove the hate crime materials from its domain including electronic media.

Impact of Hate Speech

• Social issues: Hate speech deepens divisions between communities and disrupts long-standing social cohesion. Repeated hateful narratives escalate into mob violence, riots, and targeted attacks.
• Erosion of Constitutional Values: Hate speech challenges the principles of equality, fraternity, and dignity enshrined in the Constitution.
  • It undermines secularism, a core pillar of India’s constitutional morality.
• Psychological Harm: Individuals facing hate speech suffer anxiety, trauma, and long-term mental stress.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution deals with the reasonable restrictions that can be placed on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). 
• Conditions under which speech can be restricted by the state: Security of the State, Public Order, Decency or Morality, Contempt of Court, Defamation, Incitement to Offense.

Steps taken  address hate speech

• Indian Penal Code (IPC) / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Specific sections like Section 153A, Section 295A, etc in penal codes criminalize promoting enmity between groups (religion, race, language), outraging religious feelings, or inciting public fear/disorder.
• Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sec. 123(3), 123(3A): Prohibit political speech that promotes hatred or appeals to religion, caste, community during elections.
• The Supreme Court, in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), acknowledged the lack of specific legislation on hate speech and recommended that the Parliament enact a comprehensive law to address this issue
• In the case of Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) the Supreme Court of India addressed the balance between freedom of speech and expression (Article 19) and the need to restrict hate speech to maintain public order and communal harmony.

Challenges in Addressing Hate speech

• Rapid Digital Amplification: Social media platforms enable hate speech to spread rapidly and reach large audiences without fact-checking.
  • Encrypted messaging services complicate monitoring and evidence collection.
• Difficulty in Proving Intent: Many hate speech offences require proving mens rea (intent), which is hard to establish.
  • Establishing a direct link between speech and subsequent violence is legally complex.
• Absence of a Legal Definition: India lacks a precise statutory definition of hate speech, resulting in broad interpretation and inconsistent enforcement across states.
  • Ambiguous terms like enmity, insult, or ill-will lead to subjective application.

Way Ahead

• A sustainable response to hate speech requires a balanced framework that protects free expression while curbing harm. 
• India should adopt a clear and comprehensive legal definition of hate speech to ensure uniform and objective enforcement, supported by stronger accountability mechanisms for digital platforms to swiftly remove harmful content.
• An independent oversight mechanism for online harms, combined with better data collection and research, can help design evidence-based interventions and strengthen India’s commitment to equality, dignity, and social cohesion.

Source: TH