Hate Speech and Hate Crime

• 20 Feb 2026

For Prelims:  Supreme Court of India, Hate crimes, Hate speech,  Law Commission Report,  Article 19, National Crime Records Bureau

For Mains: Hate speech vs freedom of speech, Legal and institutional gaps in addressing hate crimes in India, Role of judiciary in safeguarding fraternity and equality

Source: TH

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court of India addressed growing concerns over hate crimes and hate speech, urging restraint in divisive public statements while examining a plea for a special legal framework to recognise hate-based offences. 

• The Court emphasised that identity-based violence and discriminatory rhetoric threaten social unity, even as it stressed that responses must uphold constitutional values of equality, fraternity, and national integration.

Summary

• The Supreme Court has raised concerns over rising hate speech and hate crimes, stressing that identity-based violence threatens social unity and must be addressed within constitutional values of equality and fraternity.
• It highlighted legal gaps, enforcement failures, and digital amplification as key challenges, while calling for clearer laws, stricter enforcement, and preventive measures to curb hate-based offences.

What is Hate speech and Hate Crime?

Hate speech

• About: According to the 267th Law Commission Report (2017), hate speech means words or actions meant to stir hatred against groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. 
  • Thus, it includes spoken or written words, signs, or visuals intended to create fear, provoke violence, or incite hatred. 
• Protection Against Hate Speech:
  • Constitutional Protection & Limits: Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, while Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions to protect public order, dignity, sovereignty, and prevent incitement of offences.
  • Legal Provisions:
    • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Penalises promoting enmity between groups.
    • Representation of the People Act, 1951: Disqualifies candidates convicted of promoting communal disharmony.
    • SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Punishes insults or humiliation of SC/ST members.
    • Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Penalises acts promoting untouchability.
• Key Judgements Related to Hate Speech:
  • Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2022): The Supreme Court noted the rising climate of hate speech and directed police to take suo motu action without waiting for formal complaints.
  • Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018): The Court issued guidelines to curb hate speech-driven mob violence, including appointing district nodal officers to prevent lynching.
  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, of 2000 for vagueness, affirming that vague restrictions violate free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
  • Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014): The Court urged the Law Commission to define hate speech and explore measures empowering the Election Commission to regulate it.

Hate Crime

• About:  A hate crime is a crime motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.
• Protection Against Hate Crime: India does not have a specific legal definition of hate crimes.
  • However, provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 address acts such as mob lynching based on religion, caste-based violence, attacks on Dalits and minorities, and gender- or sexuality-based assaults.

What are the Challenges in Curbing Hate Speech and Hate Crime?

• The Legal Challenge: 
  • Vague Definitions: The absence of a standalone "Hate Crime" statute in the BNS, 2023 makes it difficult to prosecute bias-motivated violence specifically.
    • Terms like "annoyance," "insult," or "disharmony" can be interpreted subjectively.
  • Proving what was in a person's mind during a crime is a massive evidentiary challenge.
    • Proving Intent: To secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove "malicious intent" or a specific "bias motive." 
• The Enforcement Gap:
  • Failure of Suo Motu Action: Although the SC directed police to file cases on their own (suo motu) without waiting for a complaint, enforcement remains patchy, especially when powerful political figures are involved.
  • Low Conviction Rates: Cases filed under promoting enmity often result in acquittals because of poor evidence collection or political pressure on investigators.
• The Digital Dilemma:
  • Algorithmic Amplification: Social media platforms often prioritize "engaging" content, which unfortunately includes sensationalist and hateful rhetoric.
  • Anonymity: The perceived anonymity of the internet allows habitual offenders to operate with impunity, often using Virtual Private Networks or fake accounts.
  • Transnational Nature: Hateful content can be hosted on servers outside India, making it difficult for local law enforcement to take down content or arrest perpetrators.
• The Societal Challenge: 
  • Electoral Gains: The Supreme Court noted that some political actors use fear-mongering and exclusionary narratives for electoral mobilization, making hate "commercially and politically profitable."
  • Historical Prejudices: Deep-seated social hierarchies (caste, religion) provide a ready-made environment for hate speech to take root and lead to physical violence (hate crimes).
  • Statistical Blind Spot: The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) has previously struggled to collect specific data on lynchings or religious killings, making it hard for policymakers to see the true scale of the problem.

What Measures Can Curb Hate Speech and Hate Crime?

• Codify a Specific Definition: Enact a standalone statute that clearly defines "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crime" based on the incitement of violence, discrimination, or severe exclusion.
• Constitutional Tort Liability: Establish that hate speech by public officials is a civil wrong. This allows victims to claim damages from the State for the violation of their Right to Dignity (Art. 21) and Equality (Art. 14).
• Service Rule Enforcement: Amend All India Service Rules to make "failure to prevent/report hate speech" a major misconduct. This allows for the immediate suspension of officials who normalize toxic rhetoric.
• Vishakha-style Code of Conduct: Implement judicial guidelines for Constitutional Functionaries that mandate a "duty of restraint," ensuring that high office-holders foster fraternity as per the Preamble.
• Suo Motu FIR Mandate: Enforce the 2022 Supreme Court directive requiring police to register cases on their own (suo motu) against hate speech, treating any delay as contempt of court.
• 24-Hour Digital Takedown: Under the IT Rules 2026, establish a "priority channel" for District Nodal Officers to demand the removal of inflammatory content within 24 hours to prevent "viral contagion."
• Fast-Track "Hate Courts": Designate special courts to conclude trials for hate crimes within 6 months, ensuring that justice is swift and serves as a visible deterrent.
• Media Literacy in Schools: Integrate critical thinking into the national curriculum (NCERT) to help students identify misinformation and "othering" narratives.
• Community Peace Committees: Institutionalize ward-level committees of diverse local leaders to act as first responders who can de-escalate communal tensions before they turn into physical violence.

Conclusion

By integrating legislative precision with digital rapid-response and official "Duty of Care," India aims to protect its constitutional fraternity from the corrosive effects of hate. Ultimately, bridging the gap between legal mandate and ground-level enforcement remains the final frontier in ensuring equal citizenship for all.

Drishti Mains Question:

Q. Examine the legal and institutional challenges in prosecuting hate crimes in India. Why is a standalone law being demanded?

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is hate speech according to the Law Commission of India?
Hate speech includes words, signs, or visuals intended to incite hatred, fear, or violence against groups based on identity factors like religion, caste, gender, or ethnicity.

2. Does India have a specific law defining hate crimes?
No. India lacks a standalone hate crime law; such acts are addressed under BNS provisions and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. What constitutional provisions regulate hate speech in India?
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, while Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions to protect public order, dignity, and prevent incitement of offences.

4. What challenges hinder action against hate speech and hate crimes?
Key issues include vague legal definitions, difficulty proving bias intent, weak enforcement, digital anonymity, and socio-political polarisation.

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Question (PYQ)   

Prelims 

Q1. ‘Right to Privacy’ is protected under which Article of the Constitution of India? (2021) 

(a) Article 15 

(b) Article 19 

(c) Article 21 

(d) Article 29

Ans: (c)

---

Mains

Q. What do you understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. (2014)