Hate speech had not been thought of as a separate crime until recently. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has a law against promoting enmity but it is Karnataka which has decided on a law especially against hate speech. The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Control and Prevention) Bill, 2025 defines hate speech with precision and names a wide field of application. This is most useful in the atmosphere of hostility and prejudice that has enveloped Indian life. Hate speech is defined as spoken, written, visual and electronic expressions made in public that can cause injury, disharmony or hatred against individuals or groups on the grounds of religion, caste, race, language, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, tribe, place of birth or residence. The red flag on online hate speech is particularly relevant, while the grounds of possible hatred are made remarkably exhaustive. It ensures regulation of online material by deciding on a designated officer who would make service providers remove or block material promoting hatred. But it makes exemptions in the case of academic, artistic, literary, scientific and genuine religious or heritage works to protect freedom of expression. Hate crime is defined as the communication, propagation or abetment of hate speech.
The penalties range from one to seven years for a first offence and two to ten for more. Severe as the penalties are, the offences too are made cognisable and non-bailable, thus empowering the police. But there is the undoubted danger of subjective interpretations of expressions of so-called hatred and the use of the law against critics and dissenters. That is a problem with all laws which have to leave some sort of vagueness in their terms, such as ‘injury’, which is meant to describe a mental state. Dominant groups may claim ‘injury’, as happens often. The bill does carry the possibility of being used unconstitutionally. Discrimination between criticism and ‘hatred’ is a matter of judgment. Otherwise, to go by recent history, teachers, journalists, activists may all fall prey to the new law. To use the law within constitutional safeguards, it is best to follow the Supreme Court’s dictum that the speech should be an actual incitement to violence or should threaten imminent disorder. The State must remain alert to the distinction of freedom of expression and hate speech.