Context:

• In the aftermath of a war cry directed towards minorities at a religious assembly in Haridwar, it is time for India to recognise hate speech as the most heinous assault and the gravest betrayal of the Indian Constitution’s conception and protection of freedom of expression.

Discourse about Anti-Semitism:

• Hate Speech, in general, refers to comments intended to incite hatred against a certain group, which may be a community, religion, or race. This speech may or may not be intended, but it is very certain to result in violence.
• The Bureau of Police Research and Development has released a guideline defining hate speech as a language that disparages, degrades, threatens, or attacks a person based on their identity or other characteristics (such as sexual orientation, disability, religion etc.).
• According to the Law Commission of India’s 267th report, hate speech is “an incitement to hatred directed principally towards a group of individuals identified by race, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, or the like.“

The arguments about the scope of free speech:

• While the Constituent Assembly debated on Article 13 of the draft Constitution, which became Article 19 in the approved Constitution, grave reservations were made about the proposed proviso to Article 13 stating limits on freedom of speech and expression. These limits were eventually included in Article 19. (2).
• The proposed limits were opposed on the grounds that they tried to restrict free expression and were not included in the American Constitution, which had inspired the Constituent Assembly members greatly.
• Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 502(2) of the Indian Penal Code were enacted under the ‘public order’ constraint.

Present constitutional articles pertaining to freedom of expression and speech:

• According to Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution, “all people shall enjoy the right to freedom of expression.”
• The principle behind this Article is found in the Constitution’s Preamble, where a solemn resolution is made to provide the liberty of thought and expression to all of its citizens.
• However, the exercise of this right is subject to “reasonable limits” for certain reasons established under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.

According to the Indian Penal Code:

• Sections 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code punish actions that incite hostility and animosity between two communities.
• Section 295A of the IPC deals with penalising actions that intentionally or maliciously offend a class of individuals’ religious sentiments.
• Sections 505(1) and 505(2) make it illegal to publish or circulate anything that incites ill will or hate amongst various communities.

Supreme Court on the issue:

• The Supreme Court said in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs Union of India &Ors. (2014) that hate speech is an attempt to marginalise persons on the basis of their membership in a group.
• Hate speech tries to delegitimize group members in the view of the majority by lowering their social position and acceptability within society.
• Thus, hate speech transcends the level of inflicting discomfort to particular group members. It has the potential to have a social influence.
• Hate speech creates the framework for subsequent, wide assaults on the vulnerable, which may include discrimination, ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence, and, in the most severe circumstances, genocide.
• Additionally, hate speech impairs a protected group’s capacity to reply to the substantive ideas being debated, preventing them from fully participating in our democracy.
• Concerning the spread of hate speech, the Supreme Court said that the issue is not one of a lack of legislation but rather one of their ineffective enforcement. As a result, both the administration and civil society must play a role in upholding the already-existing legal environment.
• Effective control of “hate speeches” at all levels is necessary since their authors may be prosecuted under current criminal law, and all law enforcement authorities must guarantee that the existing legislation does not become a dead letter.
• Additionally, the Supreme Court asked that the subject be examined by the Indian Law Commission.
• The Law Commission’s 267th report said that new provisions in the IPC were necessary to address the problem.
• To combat the problem of hate speech, it proposed the addition of additional Sections 153C (prohibiting incitement to hatred) and 505A (creating fear, alarm, or instigation of violence in specific circumstances).
• Neither the legislation has been tightened nor has it been rigorously enforced.

Conclusion:

• Numerous issues must be considered when limiting speech, including the volume of strong viewpoints, their offensiveness to specific populations, and their impact on the ideals of dignity, liberty, and equality.
• While there are laws against such crimes, Thus, defining hate speech properly would be the first step in combating the problem, and further activities such as public awareness raising are necessary.