Why is this in News?
- The Karnataka government has tabled the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025 in the State Legislative Assembly.
- The Bill proposes:
- A new, expansive statutory definition of hate speech.
- Stricter punishments than existing central laws.
- Executive powers to block online content deemed hateful.
- Has triggered debate on free speech, overcriminalisation, federal overlap, and constitutional validity, especially in light of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Relevance
- GS II – Polity
- Fundamental rights: Article 19(1)(a) vs Article 19(2)
- Federalism and concurrent legislative powers
- GS III – Internal Security
- Social cohesion, communal harmony, online hate
Existing Legal Framework on Hate Speech
- Indian Penal Code (now BNS):
- Section 153A / 196 BNS: Promoting enmity.
- Section 295A: Outraging religious feelings.
- Section 505: Statements conducing to public mischief.
- Judicial position:
- No single codified definition of “hate speech”.
- Courts rely on context, intent, and tendency to incite violence or disorder.
- Supreme Court trend:
- Repeated emphasis on “bail, not jail”.
- Caution against chilling effect on free speech.
What Does the Karnataka Bill Propose?
Broad Definition of Hate Crime
- Includes any communication of hate speech:
- Spoken, written, signs, symbols, electronic communication.
- Targets speech against individuals or groups based on:
- Religion, race, caste, sex, gender, sexual orientation.
- Language, place of birth, residence, tribe, disability, etc.
- Objective: To meet a “prejudicial interest”.
Key Changes Introduced by the Bill
Expanded Definition of Hate Speech
- Hate speech can be invoked even without direct incitement to violence.
- Covers:
- Insults.
- Humiliation.
- Promotion or justification of hatred.
- Concern:
- Vagueness and overbreadth, risking arbitrary application.
Increased Punishment
- Mandatory minimum imprisonment: 1 year.
- Maximum punishment: Up to 7 years.
- If offence invites punishment under other laws:
- Enhanced punishment up to 10 years.
- Contrast:
- Many BNS hate speech offences carry lower or non-mandatory sentences.
Government’s Takedown Powers
- State empowered to:
- Order removal of online content.
- Direct service providers, intermediaries, platforms to block material.
- Based on Information Technology Rules, 2009.
- Appeals mechanism:
- Bureaucratic and executive-dominated.
- Limited immediate judicial oversight.
Collective Liability Provisions
- Organisations and institutions can be punished if:
- Hate crimes are committed by members.
- They fail to show “due diligence” to prevent it.
- Shifts burden of proof:
- Accused must prove lack of knowledge or preventive action.
- Raises presumption-of-guilt concerns.
Constitutional & Legal Concerns
Article 19(1)(a) vs Article 19(2)
- Free speech can be restricted only on enumerated grounds.
- Critics argue:
- The Bill goes beyond “reasonable restrictions”.
- Punishes speech without clear nexus to public order or violence.
Vagueness Doctrine
- Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down laws that:
- Use open-ended, undefined terms (e.g., Shreya Singhal case).
- Terms like:
- “Prejudicial interest”
- “Humiliation”
- “Promotion of hatred”
lack precise legal thresholds.
Chilling Effect
- Fear of prosecution may:
- Deter legitimate dissent.
- Affect academic, journalistic, and artistic expression.
- Though the Bill provides exemptions for:
- Academic inquiry.
- Fair reporting.
- Critics argue exemptions are narrow and discretionary.
Federalism Issue
- Criminal law is in the Concurrent List.
- Risk of:
- State law conflicting with central statutes (BNS, IT Act).
- Fragmentation of hate speech regulation across States.
Supreme Court Context
- Amarnath Kumar Guidelines (procedural safeguards).
- Recent observations:
- Hate speech enforcement failures often stem from selective application, not absence of law.
- Courts have questioned whether new laws are needed or better implementation of existing ones.
Arguments in Favour of the Bill
- Addresses:
- Rising identity-based violence.
- Online hate ecosystems.
- Provides:
- Victim-centric framework.
- Strong deterrence.
- Signals political commitment to social harmony.
Arguments Against the Bill
- Overcriminalisation of speech.
- Executive overreach via takedown powers.
- Risk of misuse against political opponents, activists, journalists.
- Inconsistency with SC’s free speech jurisprudence.
Takeaway
- The Karnataka Bill reflects a shift from harm-based regulation to speech-based criminalisation.
- The core question is not intent, but constitutional proportionality and precision.
- Without narrow tailoring and strong safeguards, the law risks curing hate by chilling liberty.
Conclusion
While the Karnataka Hate Speech Bill aims to combat rising social polarisation, its expansive definitions, harsh penalties, and executive-heavy enforcement raise serious concerns about free speech, federal balance, and constitutional overreach.
