What Happened
- A growing debate has emerged over whether the Supreme Court is adequately addressing the rising menace of hate speech in India.
- The Court recently moved to close several hate speech matters that had been pending since 2021, directing petitioners to pursue remedies through High Courts or police action.
- Only one case — relating to a 2021 alleged hate crime against a Muslim cleric in Noida — was kept alive to monitor trial progress.
- According to India Hate Lab, at least 1,318 hate speech events targeting religious minorities were recorded in 2025 across 21 states, one Union Territory, and the NCT of Delhi — roughly four incidents daily.
- Experts argue that hate speech often operates not as explicit incitement to violence but as "prejudicial discourse" that systematically marginalises particular communities.
Static Topic Bridges
Freedom of Speech and Its Reasonable Restrictions (Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2))
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, including the right to express views through any medium. However, this right is not absolute. Article 19(2) empowers the State to impose "reasonable restrictions" on grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
- Restrictions under Article 19(2) can only be imposed by a duly enacted law, not by executive action.
- The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional, distinguishing between "discussion," "advocacy," and "incitement."
- In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), the Court emphasised the State's duty to curb hate speech while recognising the difficulty of drawing a clear line.
- The "clear and present danger" test and the "tendency" test are two judicial standards applied in free speech cases.
Connection to this news: The debate over the Court's handling of hate speech cases fundamentally revolves around the tension between protecting free expression under Article 19(1)(a) and imposing necessary restrictions under Article 19(2) to maintain public order and social harmony.
Legal Framework Against Hate Speech: IPC/BNS Provisions
India's criminal law addresses hate speech through multiple provisions. Under the Indian Penal Code, Section 153A (promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, language, etc.) and Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) were the primary sections invoked. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the IPC, Sections 196(1) and 197(1) correspond to the earlier Sections 153A and 153B, with an added reference to "Electronic Communication."
- IPC Section 153A: Punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both; extended to 5 years in some aggravated cases.
- IPC Section 295A: Punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
- BNS Sections 196-197: Incorporate electronic communication explicitly, reflecting the digital dimension of modern hate speech.
- Section 505 IPC (now corresponding BNS sections): Addresses statements conducing to public mischief.
- The Supreme Court in Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) laid down detailed guidelines on what constitutes hate speech, recognising its "tendency to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group."
Connection to this news: The Court's decision to close pending hate speech matters raises questions about whether the existing statutory framework under IPC/BNS is being effectively utilised by prosecution agencies, or whether systemic gaps in enforcement render even strong legal provisions ineffective.
Landmark Supreme Court Directions on Hate Speech
The Supreme Court has periodically issued directions on hate speech, though implementation has been uneven. In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2021), the Court directed police forces across all States and UTs to suo motu register FIRs in hate speech cases under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 506 of the IPC without waiting for formal complaints. The Court also sought responses from State governments on their compliance with these directions.
- Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018): Court prescribed preventive and remedial measures against mob violence linked to hate speech, including appointing nodal officers in each district.
- Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007): For Section 153A to apply, there must be clear evidence of intent to create animosity; mere harsh criticism of religious practices is insufficient.
- Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of AP (1997): Merely hurting religious sentiments does not amount to a crime under Sections 153B or 505 IPC.
- The Law Commission's 267th Report (2017) recommended that separate provisions be inserted in the IPC to deal with hate speech, including new proposed Sections 153C and 505A.
Connection to this news: Despite multiple Supreme Court directions mandating proactive action against hate speech, the rising number of incidents (1,318 in 2025 alone) suggests significant gaps between judicial pronouncements and on-ground enforcement by state police and prosecution agencies.
Key Facts & Data
- India Hate Lab recorded 1,318 hate speech events in 2025 — an average of approximately 4 incidents per day across 21 states, 1 UT, and NCT Delhi.
- Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(2): Allows reasonable restrictions on 8 specified grounds.
- IPC Section 153A (BNS Section 196): Promoting enmity between groups — up to 3 years imprisonment.
- IPC Section 295A (BNS Section 299): Deliberate outrage of religious feelings — up to 3 years imprisonment.
- Law Commission's 267th Report (2017) recommended inserting new Sections 153C and 505A specifically for hate speech.
- In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court directed police to register FIRs suo motu for hate speech offences.