Face-off over Karnataka's hate speech bill: Governor Gehlot cites 18 Supreme Court orders to oppose it, state brings up two

Bengaluru: The Karnataka government is relying on two Supreme Court orders to justify legislating on hate speech whereas Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has listed out at least 18 judgements to argue against the proposed law, an internal document shows. 

On February 4, the state government sent the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill to President Droupadi Murmu through the ministry of home affairs (MHA), after Gehlot declined to give his assent. DH has accessed the state government’s communication to the MHA. 

The government cited a July 17, 2018 Supreme Court order, which observed: “Hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest it results in a reign of terror.” 

The government also quoted a May 5, 2025 order of the Supreme Court: “...we make it clear that any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand.” 

According to the stringent Bill, committing hate crime (including hate speech) will attract a jail term of one year, extendable up to seven, with a fine of Rs 50,000. Subsequent offences have up to seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh. 

The government has argued that the provisions of the Bill are not “repugnant” of any federal law. 

Gehlot flagged the Bill for “vagueness, overbreadth, manifest arbitrariness and repugnancy”. In doing so, he referred to 18 Supreme Court judgements, including two from as far back as 1950 -- Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras and AK Gopalan vs State of Madras. 

The Bill defines ‘hate speech’ as any expression made to cause injury, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will in “public view”. Gehlot said the term “public view” is undefined, “potentially covering private WhatsApp groups, limited-audience social media posts or even classroom discussions...granting unanalysed discretion” to authorities. 

“If someone believes that any word, writing, picture, symbol or digital content causes ‘discontent’ or ‘immortality’ against a community or an individual, it can be considered a crime under this law,” Gehlot stated, adding that ‘discontent’ was a mental state that varied from person to person. 

“When the state makes such subjective words part of the law, it becomes the biggest weapon in the hands of the bureaucracy,” the Governor stated. “Any vague law will ultimately lead to the abuse of the police system,” Gehlot stated, noting that “a low-level police officer” could decide whether or not a cartoon, a tweet or a satirical article was ‘incitement to hatred’. 

Gehlot pointed out that India had several laws to “control” hate speech. "There is no doubt that hate speech is harmful to society," he stated. "But killing freedom in the name of preventing hatred is not the solution."