Curbing Hate Speech in India: More Law, Less Impact

Context

Because hate speech threatens societal peace, dignity, and constitutional ideals, it presents a significant threat to pluralistic democracies. Legislators frequently enact more stringent laws in reaction to an increase in caste-based, identity-driven, and communal animosity. But an important constitutional and policy question is raised by the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2025: Does the proliferation of new laws successfully restrict hate speech, or does it complicate enforcement and harm free expression? The Bill is a prime example of the conflict between constitutional limitation and regulatory ambition.

Background: Hate Speech and Its Constitutional Context

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and expression, subject to the reasonable restrictions listed in Article 19(2), which include public order, decency, morality, and sovereignty. It is commonly acknowledged that hate speech falls under these acceptable limitations since it threatens equality and fraternity.

Hate speech has historically been controlled in India by criminal laws like Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was first enacted in 1898 and revised in 1969. These prohibitions were amended and enlarged with the passage of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, especially through Sections 196 and 197, which criminalize speech that incites hatred, denies groups constitutional beliefs, or attempts to deny them citizenship rights.

The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes Bill, 2025

The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2025, which was passed by the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, defines hate speech as any written, spoken, or electronic communication that is meant to inflict harm, hatred, discord, or malice on people or groups because of their caste, religion, race, sexual orientation, language, or community.

While prohibiting publications deemed to be in the interest of science, literature, art, education, heritage, or religion, the Bill imposes fines and imprisonment. Although the goal of combating hate speech is admirable, there are serious issues with the Bill’s form and content.

Overlap with Existing Central Laws

The Bill’s significant overlap with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a major point of contention. The Bill’s definition of hate speech closely resembles Section 196 of the BNS, which already makes communication that incites hatred or discrimination illegal. Furthermore, speech that casts doubt on the constitutional allegiance of language, caste, or religious groups is expressly targeted by Section 197 of the BNS.

In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court stated unequivocally that India already has a thorough legal framework to address hate speech and that effective enforcement, rather than legislative proliferation, is the primary challenge. According to Article 254 of the Constitution, Karnataka’s action appears superfluous in this situation and may require the President’s approval.

Problematic Exemptions and Dilution of Standards

Particularly troubling is the Bill’s exclusion of speech that is said to support literature, art, science, or religion. By citing these areas alone, hate speech cannot be justified. Interestingly, Section 153A IPC operated without such exemptions for more than 125 years. These carve-outs run the risk of weakening current protections and causing excessive litigation over arbitrary interpretations of the “public good,” rather than bolstering prosecution.

Preventive Powers and Executive Overreach

The Bill gives senior police officers and executive magistrates the authority to take preventative measures if they suspect someone of committing a hate crime. Such prophylactic measures are both unfeasible and constitutionally dubious in the digital age, where speech is instantly disseminated.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that speech must be evaluated from the viewpoint of strong-minded, rational people rather than those who are too sensitive to disagreement. Giving executive authorities, who are frequently associated with the governing political establishment, preventive powers increase the possibility of selective enforcement and the repression of valid criticism.

Jurisdictional and Federal Concerns

The Bill’s territorial restrictions are a major weakness. State-specific hate speech laws are difficult to enforce since online communication sometimes crosses state lines. Unresolved jurisdictional issues arise when content posted outside of Karnataka is accessed within the state.

Furthermore, through the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the regulations that go along with it, Parliament has already passed extensive legislation in this area. The Karnataka Bill’s Section 6, which gives an ambiguously defined “Designated Officer” the authority to restrict information without a judge’s review, raises grave concerns about federal overreach and goes against natural justice principles.

The Judiciary’s Role in Safeguarding Free Speech

In the past, the Indian judiciary has served as a constitutional guardian against excessive speech restrictions. Courts have cautioned against executive self-adjudication, ambiguous standards, and prior restriction. The Bill runs the possibility of permitting censorship under the pretence of hate prevention by empowering governments to serve as judges in their own cause.

To prevent hate speech legislation from being used as a means of stifling dissent, satire, or uncomfortable facts, judicial scrutiny is still crucial.

Comparative International Perspectives

Democracies around the world implement procedural and targeted measures to control hate speech. Under the Digital Services Act, the European Union concentrates on content removal procedures. Without granting executive censorship authority, Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) requires the prompt removal of illegal content. Instead of having extensive preventive powers, Australia’s Online Safety Act of 2021 and the UK’s Online Safety Act of 2023 rely on platform responsibility and sanctions.

Authoritarian governments like China and Russia, on the other hand, use ambiguous laws pertaining to hate speech and disinformation to legitimize monitoring and pre-censorship; democracies must steer clear of this course.

Conclusion

Hate speech is a real and expanding social issue that needs to be given careful consideration. The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes Bill, 2025, however, serves as an example of how more legislation does not always equate to greater influence. India already has a strong legal system in place to deal with hate speech. Instead of conflicting laws that could stifle free speech and complicate government, what is desperately needed is uniform, unbiased, and constitutionally based enforcement.

The remedy for hate speech must not become more harmful than the illness itself, as constitutional jurisprudence has emphasized again and time again.

Sharing is caring!