Regulating Hate Speech without Silencing Dissent

According to the United Nations, ‘Hate Speech’ is communication through writing, behaviour, images, and speech that aims to attack, demean, or trigger violence against a particular person, group, or based on inherent characteristics such as religion, nationality, ethnicity, race, descent, gender, and others. Hate speech has significant implications, including causing divisions, physical and emotional violence, political instability, violations of human rights, and others.
Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution addresses the freedom of speech, specifically the right to express opinions freely, encompassing the rights to speak, write, print, and publish, as well as freedom of expression on social media.  According to Article 19(1), Indian citizens have the right to conduct meetings, arrange rallies, and protest peacefully. Article 19(1)empowers citizens to seek accountability for government actions. Whereas Article 19(2) defines reasonable restrictions as those imposed to defend the country’s sovereignty and integrity, security, friendly relations with foreign governments, public order, and other national interests. Simultaneously, the IPC 153A criminalises any act, speech, writing, or representation that causes hatred, animosity, or disharmony within India. The IPC 259A punishes any conduct that insults religion or religious beliefs, or offends religious sentiments;
it primarily concerns the preservation of spiritual peace and public order.
The Karnataka government recently introduced the Karnataka Hate Speech Bill, 2025, which still requires the Governor’s assent. The primary goal is to combat hate speech, hate crimes, and communal tension while additionally protecting individuals and groups. Hate speech will become a non-bailable offence, punishable by a prison sentence of 1 to 7 years. The bill imposes a fine of 50,000 rupees and hefty penalties for repeat perpetrators. The police can file a charge sheet and are immediately answerable to the court; there is no need for
government punishment.
The term “hate speech” is broad, which is a serious issue because there is no precise definition of hate speech; it encompasses a wide range of remarks. The Karnataka government should provide a clear definition of “hate speech” to ensure the bill protects freedom of speech and expression rather than infringing on it. According to the BBC, hate speech will grow to 74% in 2024, particularly around the 2024 elections. Hate speech has been frequently heard, threatening India’s secular structure and nature.
As technology advances and people become more engaged on social media, online hate speech has increased. The Indian government has the Press Information Bureau’s Facts Check Unit (FCI), while other states, such as Karnataka, operate a separate Information Disorder Tackling Unit (IDTU) to regulate online information and news. The new bill empowers the Karnataka government to combat misinformation, fake news, and disinformation using fact- checking teams, AI analytics, and public awareness programs.
In recent years, regulations such as the Terrorist and Destructive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), adopted in 1985 but abolished in 1995 due to intense criticism from the Supreme Court and human rights groups, have been enacted. TADA violated human rights and was misused to target protesters, minorities, and political opponents. The bill was passed for security reasons, but it was later repealed due to criticism. The Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act (UAPA) of 1967 remains in effect, but has been amended multiple times. The UAPA has been debated due to low conviction rates, extended under-trial detention, difficulty in obtaining the bill, and its usage against activists, journalists, and students. These bills were similarly umbrella legislation, with no clear definition. Additionally, these bills lacked a clear and definite description and were quite general. Human rights will be violated if the word “hate speech” is not defined correctly.
If the Hate Speech Bill is a non-contradictory complement to the central law, it will aid in effective decentralisation and shared federalism. However, if the measure defies IPC provisions, it will require presidential intervention, which could lead to conflict between the central and state governments. The state government may draft a law to safeguard minorities, but the central government may see it as an expansion and a threat to national unity. When the central government or citizens contest the bill, the judiciary should act as an arbiter and
render a decision.
In Conclusion, to ensure the long-term viability of a bill, a democratic government must consult the public, professionals, and academicians before introducing it. Consulting and amending the bill will ensure the law is appropriately implemented and safeguard journalists, activists, and democratic movements, while also leaving room for fair criticism. Hate speech is a significant concern today, and addressing it is the government’s responsibility in a democracy.

( Fr. Lobo is a Research Assistant, Department of International Relations,Peace , Tahreem is a Research Assistant, Department of International Relations, Peace and Public Policy, St Joseph’s University, Bangalore & Dr. Kumar is Head, Department of International Relations, Peace and Public Policy (IRP and PP), St Joseph’s University, Bengaluru)