Supreme Court Directs Authorities to Ensure No Hate Speech

GS Paper II Indian Polity

Context:

The Supreme Court has directed the authorities to be “conscious that no incitement to violence and hate speech are permissible”.

According to the 267th Report of the Law Commission of India, hate speech is stated as an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like.
Impact: It poses grave dangers like communal violence, loss of human rights, rule of law and cohesion in a democratic society.

Definition: There is no definition of Hate Speech in any law in India. However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) Provisions:
- Under Section 153A of IPC, ‘promotion of enmity between different groups on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., is an offense punishable with three years’ imprisonment.
- Section 505 of IPC makes it an offense to make “statements conducing to public mischief.”
Representation of the People Act, 1951:
- Section 8 provides grounds for disqualification from contesting an election if s/he is convicted of inciting violence through freedom of speech and expression.
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955:
- Section 7 penalizes incitement to, and encouragement of untouchability through words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise.

Also Refer: Parliament Passes Three New Criminal Law Reform Bills

Constitution: Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens of India. However, this right is not absolute.
Reasonable Restriction: Article 19(2) provides certain restrictions, including defamation or incitement to an offense. This forms the bedrock against Hate Speech.

Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014): The court acknowledged the growing problem of hate speech but didn’t explicitly criminalize it, urging the Law Commission to consider specific legislation.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): This case focused on online hate speech, striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act which allowed authorities to block online content deemed “grossly offensive or harassing.”
In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India(2014), the Supreme Court held that the implementation of existing laws would solve the problem of hate speech to a great extent.

Defining hate speech: There is no universally accepted definition of hate speech, and it has not been defined in any law, making it difficult to punish the accused and establish guidelines about what hate speech Is?.
Balancing the right to speech and hate speech: Hate speech laws are often viewed as a restriction on free speech. This can lead to legal challenges and pushback from civil liberties groups.
Social Media-based hate speech: Most hate speech occurs through social media behind anonymous accounts. This adds to the struggle to identify and remove the content.
Multilingual Country: It can be difficult to identify and remove hate speech in local languages in platforms that majorly support only English. Those trying to moderate content may not understand the cultural and linguistic nuances.
Activities by Political Leaders: Political leaders like Trump have made many hate speeches online, however, they are not held accountable due to their popularity. There is a similar trend in India.
Lack of resources and legal framework: India lacks the resources and legal framework to address hate speech effectively. This makes it difficult to enforce laws and regulations.

Education and Awareness: In a multilingual country like India, hate speech can incite violence and riots (eg- Nuh Violence due to Hate Speech). Awareness through online channels is essential to address the spread of hate speech.
Collaboration: It is a complex and multifaceted issue that poses significant challenges for regulators and policymakers which will require a multifaceted approach that includes education, technology, and legal enforcement.
Strengthen implementation of existing laws: Police should be trained to address mob violence based on hate speech. Other measures like media literacy, dialogue, self-regulation, and civil society engagement should complement this.
Establish and enforce codes of conduct: For legislators to hold lawmakers and political parties accountable for hate speech, and promote media ethics to discourage its dissemination.

News Source: The Hindu