Relevance: GS-1: Social empowerment, communalism, regionalism & secularism.

Key phrases: Hate Speech, IPC, Law Commission, Section 153A, Section 505,

Why in News?

• A recent religious conclave held in Haridwar witnessed inflammatory and provocative speeches by proponents of Hindutva, many of them leaders of religious organisations. Reports say many of the speakers called for organised violence against Muslims and hinted at a Myanmar-type ‘cleansing campaign’. There was a threat that if the government resisted the formation of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, there will be an ‘1857-like’ revolt against the state.

What is Hate Speech?

• There is no specific legal definition of ‘hate speech’. Provisions in law criminalise speeches, writings, actions, signs and representations that foment violence and spread disharmony between communities and groups and these are understood to refer to ‘hate speech’.
• The Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report, says: “Hate speech generally is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like ...
• Thus, hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.”
• In general, hate speech is considered a limitation on free speech that seeks to prevent or bar speech that exposes a person or a group or section of society to hate, violence, ridicule or indignity.

How is it treated in Indian law?

• Sections 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are generally taken to be the main penal provisions that deal with inflammatory speeches and expressions that seek to punish ‘hate speech’.
• Under Section 153A, ‘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. It attracts a five-year term if committed in a place of worship, or an assembly engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies.
• Section 505 of IPC makes it an offence to making “statements conducing to public mischief”. The statement, publication, report or rumour that is penalised under Section 505(1) should be one that promotes mutiny by the armed forces, or causes such fear or alarm that people are induced to commit an offence against the state or public tranquillity; or is intended to incite or incites any class or community to commit an offence against another class or community.

What has the Law Commission proposed?

• The Law Commission has proposed that separate offences be added to the IPC to criminalise hate speech quite specifically instead of being subsumed in the existing sections concerning inflammatory acts and speeches.
• It has proposed that two new sections, Section153C and Section 505A, be added. Its draft says Section 153C should make it an offence if anyone
• Uses gravely threatening words, spoken or written or signs or visible representations, with the intention to cause fear or alarm; or
• Advocates hatred that causes incitement to violence, on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe.
• 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.

Judicial Interpretations on Hate Speech:

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 2015 : 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).
• Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam 2011: The Court held that a mere act cannot be punished unless an individual resorted to violence or inciting any other person to violence.
• S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram 1989: In this case, the Court held that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless the situation so created are dangerous to the community/ public interest wherein this danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. There should be a proximate and direct nexus with the expression so used.

Effective way to tackle Hate speech in India:

• The most efficient way to dilute hatred is by the means of Education. Our education system has a prominent role to play in promoting and understanding compassion with others.
• Awareness programs and initiatives about maintaining cordial relationship must be taken by not only the government but also by private people.
• Although there are many laws regarding hate speeches but stricter penalizing is required as religious sentiments and beliefs are a precious thing for an individual.
• Fight against hate speech cannot be isolated. It should be discussed on a wider platform such as the United Nations. Every responsible government, regional bodies, and other international and regional actors should respond to this threat.
• Cases of hate speech can be addressed through Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms as it proposes a shift from the long procedures of the court to the settlement of the dispute between parties by way of negotiation, mediation, arbitration and/or conciliation.

Way Forward:

• As victims of hate speech they fear and are indeed nervous to enter public spaces or participate in the discourse. This brings a change in their behaviour, such intangible effects of hate speech on people are the most insidious and damaging to their right to live with dignity.
• This issue should be strictly and earnestly addressed with tougher laws and their stricter implementation. As a people who have been existing on the basis of unity in diversity ,societal sensitisation is necessary and nothing can be more useful than social media
• If done, we in fact are acting true to the Preambular values like ‘ fraternity and dignity of the individual’ apart from Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties enshrined in our Constitution

Source: The Hindu

Mains Question:

Q. A recent religious conclave held in Haridwar witnessed inflammatory and provocative speeches by proponents of Hindutva. It brought again hate speech as an issue of immediate public concern in India. With reference to this incident briefly explain Hate Speech ? How does Hate Speech pose complex challenges to freedom of speech and expression? Illustrate.