Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

No one should indulge in hate speech, says SC

March 21, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance GS2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The Supreme Court declared that no individual or group should indulge in hate speech, reiterating that existing penal provisions must be applied uniformly and without regard to the identity of the accused
  • The bench directed that when there is prima facie evidence of communal targeting, police are duty-bound to invoke the relevant anti-hate-speech provisions — not at their discretion
  • The court reviewed a case involving a 2021 assault on a Noida cleric, finding that the UP Police had failed to invoke IPC Sections 153B and 295A in the chargesheet despite these sections being mentioned in the FIR
  • The ruling establishes that the naming of offences in an FIR is not at the whim of the investigating officer and must reflect the actual statutory character of the alleged act

Static Topic Bridges

Hate Speech Provisions Under Indian Penal Law

India does not have a standalone hate speech statute. Instead, hate speech is addressed through several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its successor, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The key provisions are:

Section 153A IPC (now BNS Section 196): Promotes enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community, or any other ground, and does acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. Punishment: imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both; up to 5 years if committed in a place of worship.

Section 153B IPC (now BNS Section 197): Imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration — prohibits speech asserting that any group cannot be loyal to India on account of religion, race, or region. Punishment: up to 3 years imprisonment; up to 5 years if committed in a place of worship.

Section 295A IPC (now BNS Section 299): Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs. A non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.

  • BNS 2023 expanded grounds for Section 153A-equivalent offences to include "gender identity" and "sexual orientation"
  • For Sections 153B and 505 to apply, the Supreme Court has held that at least two communities or groups must be involved
  • These provisions exist alongside other IPC sections on rioting, affray, and assault — their communal character makes them analytically distinct

Connection to this news: The court directed UP Police to include Sections 153B and 295A in the investigation — precisely because the alleged assault had a religious targeting dimension that elevates it from ordinary violence to communal hate crime under these provisions.

Article 19 and Reasonable Restrictions on Free Speech

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. However, Article 19(2) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of, inter alia, the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence. Hate speech provisions under the IPC/BNS derive their constitutional validity from Article 19(2) — they are legislative restrictions on speech that endangers public order and communal harmony.

  • The restriction must be "reasonable" — tested by whether it is proportionate to the harm sought to be prevented
  • The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being overbroad, signalling that hate speech laws must be precisely targeted
  • The test for hate speech provisions: there must be a proximate and direct nexus between the speech and the public order violation — not a mere remote connection

Connection to this news: The court's direction to invoke 153B and 295A is grounded in the constitutional framework that treats communally targeted violence as a legitimate subject of restriction — provided the evidentiary threshold (prima facie communal targeting) is met.

Police Discretion and Duty to Investigate Hate Crimes

Indian criminal law grants investigating officers significant discretion in framing charges during a chargesheet. However, the Supreme Court has progressively curtailed arbitrary exercises of this discretion in hate crime cases. The court has held that when an FIR discloses specific sections and there is prima facie evidence supporting them, the investigating officer cannot simply omit those sections in the chargesheet without justification. Doing so exposes the investigation to judicial oversight through the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 (High Courts) and Article 136 (Supreme Court) and through the supervisory power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175(3) BNSS).

  • If a chargesheet omits charges that the FIR and evidence support, the aggrieved party can approach the Magistrate for directions for further investigation
  • Supreme Court can suo motu monitor investigations involving communal or other sensitive dimensions
  • Pattern from 2026 case: FIR mentioned 153B and 295A; chargesheet omitted them; Supreme Court directed reinstatement of these sections and further investigation

Connection to this news: The ruling reinforces the principle that investigative agencies are law-enforcement actors bound by statute and evidence, not political actors who may calibrate charges based on the identity of the accused.

Key Facts & Data

  • Section 153A IPC (BNS 196): Promoting enmity between groups — 3-year punishment (5 years in places of worship)
  • Section 153B IPC (BNS 197): Assertions prejudicial to national integration — 3-year punishment (5 years in places of worship)
  • Section 295A IPC (BNS 299): Deliberate insult to religion — 3 years imprisonment, non-bailable
  • Constitutional basis: Article 19(2) permits restrictions on speech for public order — hate speech provisions are validated under this clause
  • BNS 2023 additions: Gender identity and sexual orientation added as protected characteristics
  • Key precedent: Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) — overbroad restrictions on speech unconstitutional
  • UP Police directed to apply 153B and 295A in 2021 Noida cleric assault case (Supreme Court, February 2026)