[Answered] Examine the significance of Karnataka’s Hate Speech Bill in addressing a legislative gap in India. Critically analyze the challenges in regulating hate speech without its formal definition in criminal law.

Introduction

India’s rising hate speech cases, with only 20.2% conviction under BNS 196 (formerly IPC 153A, NCRB 2020), highlight a legislative vacuum. Karnataka’s 2025 Bill marks India’s first targeted statutory response.

Significance of Karnataka’s Hate Speech Bill

1. Addresses the long-pending legislative vacuum: Despite frequent political and communal incidents, India lacks a statutory definition of hate speech. Karnataka’s Bill introduces a clear definition based on protected characteristics—religion, caste, gender, disability, sexual orientation—aligning with global legal standards (e.g., EU Framework Decision 2008).
2. Expands protected categories beyond existing laws: Current BNS provisions (196, 299, 353) focus on public order, not discrimination. The new Bill incorporates gender identity, sexual orientation and disability, aligning with: NALSA (2014) transgender rights judgment, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 20
3. Introduces organisational collective liability: A unique feature is holding office-bearers accountable when hate speech is institution-linked, useful in cases involving organised groups, extremist cells, or digital campaigns.
4. Integrates digital ecosystem regulation: The Bill empowers blocking and removal of online hateful content—critical in an era where 67% hate speech in India originates online (BMGF-IIDS 2023 study). This bridges gaps left after Section 66A (IT Act) was struck down in Shreya Singhal (2015).
5. Aligns with Law Commission recommendations: The Bill reflects the Law Commission’s 267th Report (2017) proposing Sections 153C and 505A, and echoes the 2022 Private Member’s Bill in defining hate crimes.

Challenges of Regulating Hate Speech Without Formal Definition

1. Over-reliance on public order provisions leads to misuse: Current BNS provisions (earlier IPC 153A, 295A) aim to prevent public disorder, not hate speech per se. Their vagueness allows selective targeting: Minor speeches prosecuted while majoritarian calls often ignored (as highlighted by SC bench in 2022). 80% of cases end without conviction (NCRB), indicating poor legal clarity.
2. Judicial inconsistency due to definitional ambiguity: Supreme Court’s response has oscillated: Joseph–Roy bench (2022): directed suo motu FIRs due to climate of hate. Vikram Nath bench (2023): refused continuous monitoring, shifted responsibility to police and High Courts. Without a statutory definition, courts struggle to apply the imminent threat test from Shreya Singhal (2015) consistently.
3. Difficulty balancing free speech vs. hate speech: Article 19(1)(a) freedom often clashes with 19(2) restrictions. Ambiguous definitions create fears of: over-criminalisation (stifling dissent), under-criminalisation (inability to curb targeted hatred)
4. Enforcement asymmetry and police discretion: Cognisable offences and broad police powers lead to subjective application, often influenced by political environment. Without explicit criteria, frontline enforcement becomes arbitrary.
5. Regulating online hate without clear parameters: Algorithms amplify harmful content, but absence of clear definitions makes platform moderation inconsistent. India lacks a comprehensive online harm law, unlike the UK’s Online Safety Act (2023).

Conclusion

Democracies falter when hate shapes public life. India’s challenge is crafting precise, constitutional definitions that curb hate without stifling liberty.