<p class="bodytext">The state government’s decision to introduce the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, marks a bold yet contentious intervention in an age where public discourse is often poisoned by hostility and prejudice. As the society becomes increasingly polarised, the State argues that existing criminal laws are inadequate to address the complexities of modern hate speech, particularly online vitriol. The Bill offers a more comprehensive framework, but one that carries significant risks if not tempered with constitutional safeguards. At the heart of the proposed law are clear and expanded definitions. 'Hate speech’ covers spoken, written, visual, or electronic expressions made in public with the intention to cause injury, disharmony, or hatred against individuals or groups on an exhaustive list of grounds: religion, caste, race, language, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, tribe, place of birth, and residence. 'Hate crime’ includes the communication, propagation, or abetment of such speech. The punishments are steep — with a minimum one-year imprisonment extending up to seven years, and repeat offenders facing up to 10 years. Offences are cognisable and non-bailable, and courts may award compensation to victims.</p>.Assam cabinet approves bill to ban polygamy, proposes 7-yr jail term for guilty.<p class="bodytext">The Bill goes beyond existing central laws in several ways. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) retains provisions akin to the old IPC sections on promoting enmity, but it does not define hate speech as a standalone offence. The Bill does so explicitly, widening the list of protected grounds, enhancing penalties, and granting greater authority to the police. Importantly, it directly regulates digital intermediaries by empowering a designated officer to block or remove online material, something the BNS leaves largely to the IT Act. However, it is precisely these expansive powers that raise concerns about misuse. The definitions rely on inherently subjective terms such as 'ill-will’ or 'injury’, creating a wide scope for interpretation. In the hands of an overzealous or partisan administration, such provisions risk being deployed against critics, journalists, or political opponents. By classifying the offences as non-bailable, the law makes arrest easier, and increases the likelihood of punitive action even before trial. Experience shows that the process can become the punishment.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court’s Kedar Nath Singh judgment — though in the context of sedition — laid down a guiding principle: restrictions on speech must be linked to incitement to violence or an imminent threat to public order, not merely to expressions that cause discomfort or disapproval. Any state law on hate speech must adhere to this constitutional threshold. Karnataka is right to confront the dangers of hate speech. But in doing so, it must ensure that the cure does not become worse than the disease.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The state government’s decision to introduce the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, marks a bold yet contentious intervention in an age where public discourse is often poisoned by hostility and prejudice. As the society becomes increasingly polarised, the State argues that existing criminal laws are inadequate to address the complexities of modern hate speech, particularly online vitriol. The Bill offers a more comprehensive framework, but one that carries significant risks if not tempered with constitutional safeguards. At the heart of the proposed law are clear and expanded definitions. 'Hate speech’ covers spoken, written, visual, or electronic expressions made in public with the intention to cause injury, disharmony, or hatred against individuals or groups on an exhaustive list of grounds: religion, caste, race, language, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, tribe, place of birth, and residence. 'Hate crime’ includes the communication, propagation, or abetment of such speech. The punishments are steep — with a minimum one-year imprisonment extending up to seven years, and repeat offenders facing up to 10 years. Offences are cognisable and non-bailable, and courts may award compensation to victims.</p>.Assam cabinet approves bill to ban polygamy, proposes 7-yr jail term for guilty.<p class="bodytext">The Bill goes beyond existing central laws in several ways. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) retains provisions akin to the old IPC sections on promoting enmity, but it does not define hate speech as a standalone offence. The Bill does so explicitly, widening the list of protected grounds, enhancing penalties, and granting greater authority to the police. Importantly, it directly regulates digital intermediaries by empowering a designated officer to block or remove online material, something the BNS leaves largely to the IT Act. However, it is precisely these expansive powers that raise concerns about misuse. The definitions rely on inherently subjective terms such as 'ill-will’ or 'injury’, creating a wide scope for interpretation. In the hands of an overzealous or partisan administration, such provisions risk being deployed against critics, journalists, or political opponents. By classifying the offences as non-bailable, the law makes arrest easier, and increases the likelihood of punitive action even before trial. Experience shows that the process can become the punishment.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court’s Kedar Nath Singh judgment — though in the context of sedition — laid down a guiding principle: restrictions on speech must be linked to incitement to violence or an imminent threat to public order, not merely to expressions that cause discomfort or disapproval. Any state law on hate speech must adhere to this constitutional threshold. Karnataka is right to confront the dangers of hate speech. But in doing so, it must ensure that the cure does not become worse than the disease.</p>
