- SFG FRC 2027 | Program starts from 18th Dec. 2026 | Admissions open for Entrance Test Click Here to know more →
- Prelims Test Series (PTS) for Prelims 2027 starts 11th Oct. 2026 Click Here to know more →
- [Pre-order] Ethics Redbook 3rd Edition: Delivery starts from 10th October onwards Click Here to Read More →
- 21 Sept. | GS Advance Program (GSAP) for UPSC 2027 Mains starts from 11th Oct. Click Here to Read More →
Recently, some hate speech incidents have taken place in Uttarakhand and Delhi.
Here the speakers participating in a religious event made some offensive statements regarding minorities.
Although the government has constituted an SIT to look into the matter, there is need for more concrete actions in such which matters of this grave importance.
These can have serious implications for peace and stability in the country.
| For other articles under the TIMELINE Initiative, click HERE → |
Base material
Black’s law dictionary defines hate speech as a speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances that are likely to provoke violence.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had stated in 1949 that “It would be in the interest of all to forget that there is anything like majority or minority in this country and that in India there is only one community.”
B R Ambedkar, had stated in the Constituent Assembly that: “Fraternity is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life.” “If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril.” Constitutional framers had advisedly incorporated “fraternity” as one of the goals in the Preamble.
Section updated on 17th Jan
How is hate speech detrimental to the society? – Last updated on 13th Jan 22
“A quest for social consensus against hate speech” – The Hindu – 13th Jan 22
Indirect and subconscious damage to hate speech to the psyche of society: Hate speech is not simply restricted to direct calls to violence.
It also strengthens existing prejudices and entrenches already existing discrimination.
For example: Anti-Semitism (discrimination against Jews) in Europe took its most extreme form in frequent pogroms and — ultimately — the Holocaust. However, it also on a daily basis, inculcated in society a “cultural common sense” about the Jewish people.
This “cultural common sense” was based on stereotypes and social prejudice, and justified ongoing discrimination, social and economic boycotts, and ghettoization.
This in the end leads to continued subordination of a section of society, which then can be accomplished without direct calls to violence.
No society can survive for long when incitement to violence is normalised, and enjoys legal backing.
Hate speech promotes inequality and subordination, and in its extreme form leads to violence.
Why Hate speech is on the rise in the society? – last updated on 17th Jan 22
Countering hate in the digital world – Indian Express – 17th Jan 22
The rise of social media is linked to the strengthening of personal social identities, increasing divisions.
-Personalized feeds trap users in “echo chambers” reducing exposure to alternate views.
-People gravitate towards like-minded people on social media.
-The feedback loop of social confirmation and validation can result in violence.
Digital users are prone to disinformation, hate speech, and radicalization. This has led to increasing levels of polarization and radicalization. Levels of social cohesion are also decreasing.
There can be many motivations behind these actions – like fear of missing out, or sinister intentions – like systematic and collaborative dissemination of propaganda or performative like a projection of power etc.
The information ecosystem – coined by Whitney Phillips and Ryan M. Milner, is dysfunctional and linked to environmental pollution. According to this concept, people should be concerned with how hate spreads and not whether someone intended to pollute or not.
What are various legal & constitutional provisions against hate speech? – last updated on 12th Jan 22
“Hate speech in the time of free speech” – The Hindu – 12th Jan 22
Indian penal code provides protection through various sections: Section 153A – penalizes the promotion of enmity between different groups.Section 153B– Punishes assertions prejudicial to national integration.
Section 505 –punishes rumours and news intended to promote communal enmity.
Section 295A –Criminalises insult to religious belief.
Various courts have also provided directions:
High Court of Karnataka in the case against hate speech Vs. the state of Karnataka gave the opinion that the Indian penal code makes hate speech illegal.
Supreme Court in state of Karnataka V. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2014) emphasized the need to sustain communal harmony.
Madras High Court in G. Thirumurugan Gandhi v. State (2019) highlighted that hate speeches cause discord between classes.
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.
“Supreme court must ensure hate speech guilty are punished” – The Indian express – 6th Jan 22
All citizens in India are guaranteed their right to life and personal liberty. Issuing threatening statements against anyone or any specific community is a clear violation of this right enshrined under Article 21.
Right to life and personal liberty (Article 21): Constitution of India affords all citizens equal rights.
SC has held that Article 21 must be interpreted in conformity with international law, as India is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
The state therefore has an absolute obligation to ensure that this right is not just preserved but protected.
What are the Supreme Court’s views on hate speech? – last updated on 6th Jan 22
“Supreme court must ensure hate speech guilty are punished” – The Indian express – 6th Jan 22
Incidents involving the question of the rule of law, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
SC in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India had defined “hate speech” as “an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group.”
It further said, “Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on the vulnerable that can range from discrimination to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.”
The court observed that: “The root of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather a lack of their effective execution.”
In I R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu the Supreme Court itself held that “Over the years, the jurisprudence and development around fundamental rights have made it clear that they are not limited, narrow rights but provide a broad check against the violations or excesses by the State authorities”.
What are the challenges in controlling hate speech? – last updated on 13th Jan 22
“A quest for social consensus against hate speech” – The Hindu – 13th Jan 22
Absence of sound legal definition of hate speech: Although SC in various judgements has defined hate speech as speech that targets people based on their identity, and calls for violence or discrimination against people because of their identity, however there is need for more clarity on it.
Problem in Identification of Hate speech due to its ambiguous nature-Due to its very nature, it’s very difficult to identify what constitutes as hate speech and what not.
People who are involved in delivering hate speech do it under the disguise of self-defence rather than calls to violence or deliver it in an ambiguous manner. Example– A number of visual and verbal cues were used that everyone knew referred to the Jewish community, to the point where it was no longer necessary to take the community by name.
Indirect hate speech of this kind is known as a “dog-whistle”.
While it may escape the attention of an external observer, both the speaker and the listener know what — and who — is being referred to.
“Hate speech in the time of free speech” – The Hindu – 12th Jan 22
There are uncertainties around the interpretation of hate speech, which have resulted in the adoption of varying standards.
For example, The Madras High Court, in Maridhas v. State (2021), quashed an FIR alleging hate speech by holding that the ‘YouTuber’ is entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court distinguished this case from the application of the ‘Who? What? Where? Test’ laid down in the Amish Devgan case.
On the contrary, the Madras High Court, in the case of Fr. P. George Ponnaiah v. Inspector of Police (2022), gave no relief to the petitioner.
Also, there is a lack of clear legislative guidance and the Supreme Court has been asked to review hate speech laws.
What is the way forward? – last updated on 17th Jan 22
“Countering hate in the digital world” – Indian Express – 17th Jan 22
-There is a need to focus not only on people who have a larger audience but on every big and small user of social media.
-The distinction between offline and online effects should be done away with as at the level of society both are equally harmful.
-The providers of platforms should implement means of regulating hate speech.
-There is a need for “counterspeech” to counter radicalization. This will include tactics to counter hate speech by presenting an alternative narrative. It should aim at building empathy by humanizing, enforcing social norms around respect, De-escalating a dialogue etc.
Social norms impact families, friends and education. Influencers and leaders can shape these norms. There is an urgent need to adopt de-radicalization at a societal level before hate speech can even enter the digital space.
“A quest for social consensus against hate speech” – The Hindu – 13th Jan 22
Requirement of social consensus to overcome the subjective nature of hate speech–
It is very difficult to succinctly define hate speech, it will inevitably reflect individual judgement. Therefore, there is need for social consensus about what kind of speech is nothing but hate speech.
Social consensus helps to distinguish cases of hate speech from other forms of confrontational or agitational speech.
For example: In Europe, Holocaust denial is an offence and is enforced with a degree of success.
This is because there is a pre-existing social consensus about the moral abhorrence of the Holocaust and the determination not to see it repeated.
Consistent legal implementation and daily conversations within the society will help to achieve this social consensus.
SC has a very appropriate opportunity to start this process.
“Hate speech in the time of free speech” – The Hindu – 12th Jan 22
Specialised legislation to govern hate speech propagated via the internet especially social media should be framed.
Inspiration can be taken from Australian federal law called criminal code amendment act 2019, which imposes liability upon internet service providers such persons are aware of any and if it is seen as offensive.
Law commission of India, in 267th report, recommended incorporation of 2 provisions:
Section 153C: to cover offence committed when any person uses threatening words which are intended to cause fear or hatred including violence on the grounds of race, caste, religion, sex, gender identity and other characteristics.
Section 505A: include provisions penalising causing of fear, alarm or provocation of violence.
Parliamentary standing committee on home affairs, 18th report, recommended incorporation of provisions in the information technology act to deal with online hate speech.
“Supreme court must ensure hate speech guilty are punished” – The Indian express – 6th Jan 22
Whenever there is an indication that rights of citizens or any section of it are compromised then Supreme court must step in as it is the real custodian of the fundamental rights of citizens and their ultimate protector.
