Source: Times of India

Why in News?

The Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum’s (WLF) 101 women lawyers practicing in Delhi and Gurgaon submitted a letter petition to Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud to seek intervention of the Supreme Court (SC) in the recent instances of hate speeches in various places across Haryana including Nuh.

Background

• WLF contended in its letter that the State should be given instructions to curb incidents of Hate Speech because videos containing hate speech have appeared on social media.
• It was further stated that circulated videos that relate to harming, threatening to harm a community/ place of worship or urge economic boycott of any community should be tracked and banned.
• The letter plea highlighted how the Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu (on its own motion) cognizance of demolitions carried out by State authorities pursuant to the Nuh violence and this approach of the court has gone a long way in building confidence of citizens in the rule of law.
• The letter petition relied upon following pronouncements:
  • In the case of Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India and Others (2018), SC had held that it is the responsibility of governments to curb mob vigilantism and mob violence through stringent measures.
  • Also, in Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India (2023), SC observed that there has to be harmony between the communities and that the calls to boycotting the Muslim community after the recent communal violence at Nuh was “unacceptable”.
• It was urged by WLF that the following directions be issued to the State government:
  • To promote an environment of dignity and liberty for citizens of all religions in the State of Haryana and fraternity between communities by announcing programmes that highlight inclusion and awards for acts of communal harmony;
  • To take steps in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to prevent incidents of hate speech;
  • To track and ban videos that threaten harm to any community/ places of worship or urge economic boycott of any community;
  • To take immediate action against persons found responsible for committing acts of hate speech.

Hate Speech

• According to the United Nations (UN) “hate speech” in common parlance refers to offensive discourse targeting a group, or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.
• According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there has been a huge increase in cases registered to promote hate speech as there were only 323 cases registered in 2014, which has jumped to 1,804 cases in 2020.
• Hate speech has not been defined in any law in India. However, Sections 295A, 153A, 505 etc. of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) deals with speech or words that could create mischief or cause imputations to national integration.
• The Bill named Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 which is recently proposed in the Parliament will deal with Hate Speech under Section 297 which will replace Section 295A of IPC if assented to.
  • Section 297 - Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs - Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Case Laws

The SC has time and again emphasized on the importance of freedom of speech and has given verdicts on the matter of online speech, few of which are discussed below:

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):
  • The court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), which had criminalized online speech, stating that it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Sukumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019):
  • The court held that hate speech on social media platforms is not protected by the right to freedom of speech and expression provided under the Constitution of India (COI), 1950.

Constitutional Provision Related to Hate Speech

Article 19(1)(a) of the COI deals with Freedom of speech and expression along with the reasonable restrictions that can be imposed under Article 19(2).

Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right—

(a) to freedom of speech and expression.

Article 19 (2) - Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the 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.

Hate Speech Under Indian Penal Code, 1860

IPC incorporates provisions of Hate Speech majorly under Sections 153A, 295A, 505, etc. some of them are mentioned below:

• Section 153 A - Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. —

(1) Whoever—

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racials, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or

(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 505 - Statements Conducing to Public Mischief —

(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report-

(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or

(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or

(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. —

Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc.—

Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

Exception.—It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such intent as aforesaid.