Prosecution Of Hate Speech And Communal Violence Instigators
🔹 I. Introduction
Hate speech refers to speech, writing, or expression that incites violence, hatred, or discrimination against individuals or groups based on religion, caste, ethnicity, gender, or nationality.
When such speech leads to communal violence, the law treats it as a grave offence because it threatens public order, secularism, and the unity of the nation.
🔹 II. Relevant Legal Provisions
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other statutes provide the legal framework for prosecuting hate speech and instigation of communal violence:
1. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 153A – Promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
Section 153B – Imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration.
Section 295A – Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Section 505(1) & 505(2) – Statements conducing to public mischief, promoting enmity, or inciting violence.
Section 120B & 34 – Criminal conspiracy and common intention.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
Sections 95 & 196 – Empower the government to prohibit publications and authorize prosecutions for offences against the state or public tranquility.
3. Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66 & 67 – Penalizes publication or transmission of offensive or inflammatory material online.
4. Representation of the People Act, 1951
Section 123(3A) – Treats promotion of enmity on religious or linguistic grounds during elections as a corrupt practice.
🔹 III. Landmark Case Laws
Below are five major judgments that define the judicial approach to hate speech and communal violence instigation in India:
1. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) 11 SCC 477
Facts:
An NGO filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions to curb hate speeches by political and religious leaders that promote communal hatred.
Issue:
Whether the Supreme Court could issue guidelines to regulate hate speech pending legislative action.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the menace of hate speech but observed that the existing laws (Sections 153A, 295A, 505 IPC, etc.) were adequate if effectively enforced. The Court emphasized the need for strict implementation rather than new laws.
Key Observations:
Freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute.
Hate speech can distort democratic discourse and incite violence.
The Election Commission and Law Commission were directed to recommend stricter measures.
2. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 7 SCC 431
Facts:
The accused was charged under Section 153A for publishing material allegedly promoting enmity between communities.
Issue:
Whether the publication constituted an offence under Section 153A.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that to attract Section 153A, the prosecution must prove intent to promote enmity. Mere criticism of another community without intent or likely result of public disorder does not constitute the offence.
Key Takeaway:
Intent and impact are both crucial elements in determining guilt under hate speech provisions.
3. Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1
Facts:
TV anchor Amish Devgan made derogatory remarks against a Sufi saint during a broadcast, leading to multiple FIRs under Sections 153A, 295A, and 505(2) IPC.
Issue:
Whether his statements were protected under freedom of speech or constituted hate speech.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court refused to quash the FIRs, holding that freedom of speech cannot extend to incitement or insult of religion.
Key Observations:
The test for hate speech depends on the content, context, and intent.
A statement made recklessly or maliciously, even if later clarified, may still be prosecuted.
Public figures have a higher responsibility since their words reach large audiences.
4. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 377 & (2015) 12 SCC 702
Facts:
The accused was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for being a member of a banned organization.
Issue:
Whether mere membership or speech supporting such groups amounts to a criminal act.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that mere membership or passive expression of support does not constitute a crime unless there is incitement to violence or public disorder.
Key Takeaway:
The Court adopted the “clear and present danger” and “imminent lawless action” tests, balancing free speech and public order.
5. Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2023) 10 SCC 1
Facts:
A batch of petitions alleged rampant hate speech by certain groups and individuals, particularly against religious minorities.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court issued strong directions to all States and Union Territories:
To register suo motu FIRs against hate speech instigators without waiting for complaints.
To ensure immediate action and prosecution under Sections 153A, 295A, 505 IPC, etc.
The Court reiterated that failure to act would amount to contempt of court.
Key Observations:
“Silence is complicity.” Authorities cannot remain passive spectators.
Hate speech is a form of violence and a threat to constitutional morality.
🔹 IV. Principles Evolved from Case Law
Mens rea (intent) is essential – mere offensive speech isn’t always hate speech.
Public order and social harmony are legitimate grounds to restrict speech.
Authorities have a positive obligation to prevent and prosecute hate speech.
Context and impact matter — same words may be harmless in one setting but inflammatory in another.
Courts insist on balanced enforcement — avoiding both over-censorship and under-enforcement.
🔹 V. Conclusion
The prosecution of hate speech and communal violence instigators is guided by both criminal law principles and constitutional values.
While freedom of speech is vital for democracy, it cannot extend to speech that spreads hatred, intolerance, or violence.
The Indian judiciary, through the above cases, has consistently reinforced that free speech must coexist with social responsibility and respect for pluralism — the foundation of India’s secular state.
RELATED Blog
0 comments