Supreme Court Says Hate Speech Will Be Prosecuted Equally, No Matter The Faith Of The Offender

Relevance: GS1 - Communalism, regionalism & secularism, GS2 - Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors,

(Source: The Hindu, 08/18/2023)

Click here for Daily Current Affairs

Why in the news?

• Recently, the Supreme Court of India stated that all incidents of hate speech would be punished regardless of the religious beliefs of the offender.
• In 2018, the court condemned hate crimes and held that it was the “sacrosanct duty” of the State to protect the lives of its citizens.

What has the Supreme Court said about hate speech?

A bench of Supreme Court Justices headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna stated that all instances of hate speech would be treated equally regardless of who was committing it.

Hate speech on the rise

• The Court was hearing petitions regarding the increase in instances of hate speech throughout the country.
• According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the cases registered related to hate speech have risen from 323 cases in 2014 to 1,804 cases in 2020.
• The Court recently asked the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the governments of Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Haryana to respond to a petition filed by the National Federation of Indian Women seeking an explanation for their “consistent failure” to act against lynching and mob violence.

State’s duty

• In 2022, the SC noted that a climate of hate was prevailing in the country and directed the police and other authorities to immediately register cases against hate speech makers and offenders who committed acts of communal violence without waiting for a complaint to be filed.
• In 2018 the SC issued guidelines to the states and police to prevent, control, and deter mob violence and lynchings in its verdict in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union Of India case.

What is hate speech?

• Hate speech can be defined as an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, etc.
  • It is most likely to result in violence.
  • It covers any form of expression including words, images, cartoons, objects, gestures, and symbols, and can be disseminated offline or online.
• In the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India case (2014) the Supreme Court defined hate speech as an “effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group that seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society”.
• Legislative status:
  • Article 19(2) of the Constitution: Reasonable restrictions on the Freedom of Speech such as public order, decency or morality, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
  • Section 153(a) of IPC punishes the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. with imprisonment up to 3 years.
  • Section 153(b) of IPC punishes assertions prejudicial to national integration with imprisonment of up to 3 years.
  • Section 295(a) of IPC punishes deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs with imprisonment for up to 3 years.
  • Section 505(2) of IPC punishes statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill will between classes with imprisonment for up to 3 years.
  • Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA) prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
  • Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA bar the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and include it under corrupt electoral practices.

Why should hate speech be stopped?

• Equality: Hate speech directly weakens the idea of social equality and strengthens historical marginalization, oppression & discrimination.
• Harm: Hate speech leads to violence which results in the loss of life, property, and public infrastructure.
  • It can also have long-lasting effects on the mental health of victims.
• Terror: Hate speech can be directly linked to acts of terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc.

What suggestions have been made to counter hate speech?

• The Bureau of Police Research and Development has recently released a manual for investigating agencies on cyber harassment cases, which defined hate speech as a language that denigrates, degrades, threatens, or targets an individual based on their identity or other traits (such as sexual orientation or disability or religion, etc.).
• The Law Commission of India has proposed two new sections in IPC to criminalize hate speech specifically.
  • Section 153C: Covers crimes committed when someone threatens someone with remarks meant to incite fear, hatred, or violence based on someone’s race, caste, religion, sex, gender identity, or other characteristics.
  • Section 505A: Provisions that make inciting fear, alarm, or violence a crime.
• The Viswanathan Committee (2019) recommended amending the IPC to include Sections 153 C (b) and 505 A for incitement to commit an offense on the basis of religion, race, caste or community, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, residence, place of birth, language, disability, or tribe.
  • It proposed a sentence of up to two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.
• The Bezbaruah Committee, 2014 proposed amending Section 153 C of the IPC which is punishable by five years and a fine or both, as well as Section 509 A of IPC which is punishable by three years and a fine or both.

Challenges faced in stopping hate speech

• Lack of definition: There is no universally accepted definition of hate speech while Indian laws have not explicitly defined hate speech either.
  • As a result, it is difficult to establish clear guidelines about hate speech.
• Free speech: Hate speech laws have been opposed by some as they are believed to restrict free speech.
  • This leads to legal challenges and criticism from civil liberties groups.
• Online hate speech: It is difficult to identify and remove hate speech content on social media.
  • This could be due to the difficulties in identifying cultural and linguistic terms which could be hate-inducing.
• Politics: It is difficult to hold politicians and public figures to account for their statements.
• Implementation: Countries lack the resources and legal framework to effectively address hate speech.
  • Due to the difficulty in enforcement, offenders believe they are immune leading to increases in instances of hate speech.

Other Supreme Court cases related to Hate Speech

• Ramji Lal Modi Case(1957): A five-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the validity of Section 295(A) on the grounds of public order.
• S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): The Court ruled that the right to free speech cannot be restricted unless it creates a situation that endangers the community or the public interest.
• Ramlal Puri v State of Madhya Pradesh (1973): The Supreme Court ruled that the test of hate speech should be if it offends the “ordinary man of common sense” and not the “hypersensitive man”.
  • However, these determinations are made by the court and the distinction can often be vague and vary from one judge to the other.
• Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020): The Supreme Court ruled that hate speech has no valid or redeeming motive other than hostility toward a specific group.

(*Click this link to read prelims specific weekly current affairs articles)

FAQs

MCQs

Question: Which of the following committees made recommendations to amend the IPC?

(a) Shailesh Nayak Committee

(b) Pam Rajput Committee

(c) Viswanathan Committee

(d) PK Mohanty Committee