Hate Speech in India: History, Constitutional Limits and Legal Regulation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31305/rrijm2025.v05.n03.017Keywords:
Hate speech, India, freedom of speech, Article 19, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, public order, communal harmony, constitutional lawAbstract
Hate speech is one of the most difficult problems in a constitutional democracy. Freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, but this freedom is not absolute. The Constitution permits reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Hate speech creates a direct conflict between liberty and social responsibility. On one side, citizens must be free to speak, criticise, debate and disagree. On the other side, speech that spreads hatred against communities may harm public order, equality, dignity and fraternity. India does not have one single law which defines hate speech in a complete manner. Instead, different provisions under criminal law, election law and information technology law deal with different forms of hateful, inflammatory and communal speech. This article studies the history of hate speech regulation in India, its constitutional foundation, the legal framework under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the role of courts, digital hate speech, election-related hate speech and the need for reform. The article argues that India requires a balanced approach: hate speech must be controlled, but genuine criticism, dissent, academic discussion and political speech must remain protected.
References
The Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(a).
Id., art. 19(2).
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 477.
Id.
Law Commission of India, Report No. 267, Hate Speech (March 2017).
Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 295A.
Id., s. 153A.
Id., s. 505.
The Constitution of India, supra note 1, arts. 19(1)(a) and 19(2).
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124; Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129.
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.
The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023), ss. 196, 197, 299 and 353.
The Constitution of India, supra note 1, art. 19(1)(a).
Id., art. 19(2).
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
Id.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023), s. 196.
Id.
Id., s. 197.
Id., s. 299.
Id., s. 302.
Id., s. 353.
Id., s. 352.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951), s. 123(3A). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/i650501a701
Id., s. 125.
Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, (2017) 2 SCC 629.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000), s. 69A.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, r. 3.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, supra note 20.
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., supra note 14.
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, supra note 19.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, supra note 20.
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, supra note 3.
Id.
Amish Devgan v. Union of India, supra note 6.
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 4 SCC 1.
Law Commission of India, supra note 5.
