It is important that specific and sustainable legislative provisions are put in place to combat hate speech
The increasing frequency of hate speech in India has gone unnoticed. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition Feather Events organized by Hindu Yuva Vahini in Delhi and Yeti Narasimhanand in Haridwar On December 17 and 19, 2021, respectively, in which calls for violence against Muslims were made. But, he laws dealing with hate speech are ineffective and lacking. Therefore, the Supreme Court has been asked to review the hate speech laws and various high courts have been asked to provide an explanation of the components of hate speech. The lack of clear legislative guidance means we are seeing inconsistent judicial results. Nevertheless, the increasing incidence of hate speech, particularly those targeting minorities, combined with judicial obscurity, has provided an opportunity to chart legislative reforms.
criminalization of hate speech
Hate speech is neither defined in the Indian legal framework nor can it be easily reduced to a single standard definition as it can take innumerable forms. Black Law Dictionary defines it as “speech that has no meaning other than an expression of hatred for a group, such as a particular race, especially in situations in which communication is likely to incite violence.” Building on this, the Supreme Court, in Overseas Welfare Organization vs Union of India (2014), described hate speech as “an attempt to marginalize individuals on the basis of their membership in a group” and one that “illegalize group members in the eyes of the majority, their social status and society”. Tries to reduce acceptance within.”
editorial | Striking fear: Hate speech and legal action on Haridwar
The current legislative system has several provisions to criminalize offenses that can be described as hate speech. Karnataka High Court, in Campaign Against Hate Speech Vs State Of Karnataka (2020), was of opinion That the Indian Penal Code makes illegal speeches which are intended to promote enmity or prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different classes. In particular, sections of the IPC, such as 153A, which penalizes promotion of enmity between different groups; 153B, which punishes allegations, allegations prejudicial to national integration; 505, which penalizes rumors and news with intent to promote communal enmity, and 295A, which criminalizes insult of religious beliefs of a class by words intentionally or with malicious intent, in combating hate speech contributes. The Supreme Court has upheld the view that the objective behind such provisions is to “check the fragmented communal and separatist tendencies and to secure fraternity so as to ensure the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation”.
Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka Vs Praveen Bhai Thogadiya (2004), stressed the need to maintain communal harmony to ensure the welfare of the people. In Overseas Welfare Organization In the case, the Supreme Court outlined the impact of hate speech on a target group’s ability to respond and how it could be an impetus for further attacks.
The Madras High Court has dealt with the issue of hate speech on several instances, describing it as a small spark capable of lighting a lamp only to destroy a forest. In Yes. Tirumurugan Gandhi Vs State (2019), Madras High Court explained That hate speeches create discord among classes and the responsibility attached to free speech should not be forgotten. Summarizing these legal principles, Amish Devgan Vs Union Of India (2020), Supreme Court held That “hate speech has no liberating or legitimate purpose other than hatred towards a particular group”.
Despite judicial guidance from amish devgan In this case, uncertainty about the interpretation of hate speech has resulted in different standards being adopted. Madras High Court, in Maridas vs State (2021), canceled an FIR Alleging hate speech targeting minorities, ‘YouTuber’ deserves protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and referred the matter to ‘who? what? Where? test’ has been determined in amish devgan matter. To the contrary, in the case of the Madras High Court, Father P. George Ponnaiah Vs. Inspector of Police (2022), No relief to the petitioner Considering him an influential person. In doing so, the High Court has failed to hold that a YouTuber with over 4 lakh subscribers and a periodic record of publishing inspired content would have had a greater impact than a priest with a limited audience from an isolated incident. It is common practice that statements made by ‘influencers’ only statements likely to cause breach of the peace should be treated as hate speech.
Unfortunately, separate judgments from the constitutional courts highlight the lack of established legal standards in defining hate speech, especially those propagated through the digital medium.
policy tips
The Law Commission of India in its 267th reportTo criminalize and punish the propagation of hate speech, it recommended the insertion of two new provisions: Section 153C and Section 505A of the IPC. Section 153C was drafted to cover the offense when a person uses threatening words which are intended to incite fear, or have caste, caste, religion, sex, gender identity and other characteristics. Section 505A contained provisions punishable by reason of incitement to fear, alarm or violence. In addition, the 189th report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, 2015, recommended inclusion of separate and specific provisions in the Information Technology Act to deal with online hate speech. None of the recommendations has been acted upon and this has partly given rise to ambiguity in the meaning of hate speech by various Constitutional Courts.
Most of the existing penal provisions deal with hate speech which dates back to the pre-internet era. The need of the hour is special legislation that will control hate speech propagated through internet and especially social media. Reference can be drawn to an Australian federal law called the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 2019, which places an obligation on Internet service providers if such individuals are aware of any hateful violent material, which is defined to include such content. that a reasonable person would consider offensive, can be accessed through the service provided by them.
editorial | Limit of inclusion: on IPC and hate speech
Modern-day hate speech action usually has a peculiar effect, in which the underlying purpose of inciting communal disharmony or hatred, regardless of the perpetrator’s custody, remains alive through digital or social media platforms for eternity. Is. Thus, taking cues from the best international standards, it is important that specific and sustainable legislative provisions that combat hate speech, especially that which is promoted online and through social media, are incorporated in the IPC and the Information Technology Act. amended and enacted. Ultimately, this will be possible only if hate speech is recognized as a reasonable restriction on freedom of expression.
Manuraj Shunmugasundaram is an advocate of Madras High Court and spokesperson of DMK. Information for the article Thiagarajan B.
,