In News:

• Recently, the Supreme Court in its judgement told the States of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand that they are “bound” to stop hate crimes and follow the preventive and punitive measures against hate crimes laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgements.
  
  

What’s in today’s article:

• About Hate Speech (Meaning, Article 19, Legal Provisions, Suggestions, etc.)
  
  
• News Summary
  
  

About Hate Speech:

• Hate speech covers many forms of expressions which advocate, incite, promote or justify hatred, violence and discrimination against a person or group of persons based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.
  
  
• It poses grave dangers for the cohesion of a democratic society, the protection of human rights and the rule of law.
  
  
• If left unaddressed, it can lead to acts of violence and conflict on a wider scale.
  
  
• In this sense hate speech is an extreme form of intolerance which contributes to hate crime.
  
  

Article 19 and Hate Speech:

• Article 19(2) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens of India is subjected to certain restrictions, namely, sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
  
  
• Provisions in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 authorizes the State to restrict the exercise of the freedom guaranteed under the article.
  
  

Legal Provisions of Hate Speech:

• Hate speech has not been defined 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 grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’, is an offence punishable with three years’ imprisonment.
    
    
  • Sections 505(1) and 505(2): Make the publication and circulation of content which may cause ill-will or hatred between different groups an offence.
    
    
  
  
  
• Representation of the People Act, 1951:
  • Section 8 disqualifies a person from contesting election if he is convicted for indulging in acts amounting to illegitimate use of 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.
    
    
  
  
  
• Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988:
  • Section 3(g) prohibits religious institution or its manager to allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution for promoting or attempting to promote disharmony, feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.
    
    
  
  
  

Important Judgements:

• In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the implementation of existing laws would solve the problem of hate speech to a great extent.
  
  
• In Jafar Imam Naqvi v. Election Commission of India, the petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the vitriolic speeches made by the candidates in the election and prayed for issue of writ of mandamus to the Election Commission for taking appropriate steps against such speeches.
  • However, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution regarding speeches delivered during election campaign does not qualify as public interest litigation and that the Court cannot legislate on matters where the legislative intent is visible.
    
    
  
  
  
• In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, issues were raised about Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relating to the fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, where the Court differentiated between discussion, advocacy, and incitement and held that the first two were the essence of Article 19(1).
  
  

Suggestions:

• The Law Commission has proposed that separate offences be added to the IPC to criminalize hate speech quite specifically instead of being subsumed in the existing sections concerning inflammatory acts and speeches.
  
  
• Similar proposals to add sections to the IPC to punish acts and statements that promote racial discrimination or amount to hate speech have been made by the P. Bezbaruah Committee (2014) and the T.K. Viswanathan Committee (2019).
  
  
• At present, the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws, which is considering more comprehensive changes to criminal law, is examining the issue of having specific provisions to tackle hate speech.
  
  

News Summary:

• The Supreme Court recently asked the states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh to take “corrective measures” against hate speeches peddling communal hate.
  
  
• The Court held that any failure in the part of the authorities would be viewed as an “act of deliberate negligence and/or misconduct”.