Hate Speech and Blasphemy | 02 Aug 2022
For Prelims: Law Commission of India, Hate Speech, Indian Penal Code (IPC), National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)
For Mains: Blasphemy, Hate Speech, and their Regulation
Why in News?
Recently, there has been a rise in cases related to Hate Speech, Blasphemy in India.
What is Hate Speech?
- About:
- According to the 267th Report of the Law Commission of India, Hate Speech is stated as 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.
- According to the 267th Report of the Law Commission of India, Hate Speech is stated as an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like.
- Related Data:
- According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there has been a huge increase in cases registered to promote hate speech and foster animosity in society.
- As there were only 323 cases registered in 2014, it had increased to 1,804 cases in 2020.
- According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there has been a huge increase in cases registered to promote hate speech and foster animosity in society.
What are the Regulations Related to Blasphemy?
- About:
- Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), punishes any speech, writings, or signs that “with premeditated and malicious intent” insult citizens’ religion or religious beliefs with a fine and imprisonment for up to three years.
- SC Interpretation:
- Ramji Lal Modi case (1957):
- The legality of Section 295(A) was affirmed by a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in this case.
- Supreme court reasoned that while Article 19(2) allows reasonable limits on freedom of speech and expression for the sake of public order.
- The punishment under Section 295(A) deals with aggravated form of blasphemy which is committed with the malicious aim of offending the religious sensibilities of any class.
- Supreme court reasoned that while Article 19(2) allows reasonable limits on freedom of speech and expression for the sake of public order.
- The legality of Section 295(A) was affirmed by a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in this case.
- Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs Ram Manohar Lohia case (1960):
- It stated that the link between the speech spoken and any public disorder caused as a result of it should have a close relationship for retrieving Section 295(A) of IPC.
- Further in 2011, it concluded that only speech that amounts to "incitement to impending unlawful action" can be punished.
- That is, the state must meet a very high bar before using public disturbance as a justification for suppressing expression.
- Ramji Lal Modi case (1957):
Why there is a Need for Distinction between Blasphemy and Hate Speech Laws?
- Too wide Interpretation:
- Section 295(A) is considerably too wide and it cannot be stated that deliberate disrespect to religion or religious sensibilities is necessarily tantamount to incitement.
- Section 295(A) contains hate speech statutes:
- The Supreme Court has said on several occasions that perhaps the goal of hate speech statutes in Section 295(A) is to prevent prejudice and ensure equality.
- Laws Lack Clarity:
- Hate speech laws are predicated on the critical distinction between criticizing or ridiculing religion and encouraging prejudice or aggression towards individuals or a community because of their faith.
- Unfortunately, there is a huge disparity between this interpretation and the actual wording due to which the law is still being exploited at all levels of administration.
- Hate speech laws are predicated on the critical distinction between criticizing or ridiculing religion and encouraging prejudice or aggression towards individuals or a community because of their faith.
Way Forward
- Blasphemy, which generally prohibits criticism of religion, is incompatible with the principles of democratic societies.
- In a free and democratic society, there should be no scrutiny of discourse or objections.
- Following the subtle line between the protection of faith and hate speech, the only viable solution is to keep blasphemy in law and make it non-criminal.