Policing Hate, Redefining Speech: Karnataka’s Contested New Law

What constitutes hate speech and hate crime remains a deeply contested question, especially in an increasingly polarised society where political identities shape moral boundaries. While political parties across the spectrum profess an aversion to hate speech, at least in principle, the task of defining it often becomes an ideological battleground. 

What one group considers a legitimate expression of belief or political critique, another sees as incitement, vilification, or a direct threat to social harmony. The ambiguity surrounding these definitions ensures that any attempt at legal codification will provoke controversy. This inherent tension came to the fore in the Karnataka Assembly when the Congress government introduced the Hate Speech and Crime Prevention Bill, aimed at preventing hate speech and hate crimes. 

Arguing that existing legal provisions are inadequate to address the scale and intensity of contemporary hate campaigns, the government said a dedicated law was necessary to curb speech and acts that target individuals and communities based on religion, caste, language, gender, or other protected identities. 

Ministers cited the normalisation of provocative speeches, online abuse, and targeted intimidation as evidence of a rising tide that, they argued, threatens constitutional values and public order.

The Opposition, led by the BJP, strongly opposed the bill, calling it vague, overbroad, and susceptible to political misuse. 

BJP legislators warned that the law could become a tool to silence dissent, criminalise unpopular opinions, and selectively target opposition voices under the guise of maintaining communal harmony. They argued that existing laws are sufficient to deal with incitement and violence. They accused the government of attempting to cloak political control in the language of social justice.

Despite the sharp divisions and heated exchanges on the Assembly floor, the bill was passed. Yet, the passage of the legislation has done little to settle the debate. Instead, it has reopened larger questions about the balance between free speech and social responsibility, the state’s role in regulating expression, and the dangers of both inaction and overreach. In Karnataka, as elsewhere in India, the struggle to draw a clear line between hate speech and protected speech remains unresolved, reflecting not just legal uncertainty, but the deeper fault lines of a society grappling with polarisation itself.

Introducing the bill in the Karnataka Assembly, Home Minister G. Parameshwara described it as an essential legal instrument to combat hate crime and hate speech, which he said were being deliberately spread by certain individuals and organisations to divide society. The legislation, he argued, was necessitated by the growing normalisation of incendiary speech and targeted hostility against vulnerable communities.

The bill defines hate speech as any expression—spoken, written, visual, or communicated through print or electronic media—made with the intent to cause injury, disharmony, enmity, or ill-will against an individual, living or dead, or against a class, group, or community. The definition covers speech targeting people based on religion, caste, gender, language, disability, place of birth, or tribe.

Hate crimes under the proposed law are broadly defined to include any act that constitutes “communication of hate speech.” 

This includes the creation, publication, circulation, or sharing—offline or online—of material intended to promote, propagate, incite, or even attempt to incite hate speech. The bill covers verbal, print, electronic, and other forms of communication, provided they are intended to generate disharmony, enmity, hatred, or ill-will against an individual, group, community, or organisation.

The Karnataka government has also drawn legitimacy for the legislation from the Supreme Court’s 2023 directions on hate speech. The apex court had ordered governments to take suo motu action against those involved in hate speech, irrespective of whether a formal complaint had been filed. In its observations, the court made it clear that treating hate speech as part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. 

“Hate speech negates all other freedoms,” the court had said, underlining the state’s obligation to intervene.

Legal experts supporting the bill argue that it flows directly from these judicial directions. 

“The law is essential in the present circumstances,” says Ashok Naik, a Bengaluru-based High Court lawyer. “Hate speech by various organisations and individuals has been wreaking havoc in society. Karnataka has witnessed a surge in hate speeches by different groups, often driven by political motives to divide society. At the outset, the new bill carries the direction of the Supreme Court,” he adds.

However, even among those who recognise the dangers posed by hate speech, there is unease over the sweeping powers the bill grants to law enforcement authorities. Critics fear that the legislation could infringe on personal liberty and be misused as a political tool to target dissenters and opposition voices.

Dr Venkatanarayanan Sethuraman, Head of the Department of International Studies, Political Science and History at Christ University’s BGR campus, argues that hate speech cannot be effectively countered through law alone. 

“Hate speeches cannot be countered legally; they have to be countered politically,” he says. 

According to him, Karnataka already possesses sufficient legal mechanisms to address hate speech and hate crimes, provided existing criminal laws are implemented impartially and effectively. “The new law gives considerable scope for politically targeting and harassing people who are expressing dissent,” he cautions

The bill prescribes stringent penalties for those found guilty of committing or propagating hate speech. First-time offenders face imprisonment ranging from one to seven years, along with a fine of ₹50,000. Repeat offenders can be sentenced to between two and ten years in prison and fined up to ₹1 lakh. The legislation also empowers the government to appoint a designated officer with the authority to order the removal or blocking of websites, social media platforms, or service providers found to be promoting hate content.

While acknowledging the real and growing threat posed by hate speech and hate crimes, several rights groups have flagged serious concerns about the bill’s potential impact on free expression and civil liberties. 

Human & Women’s Rights Concerns, an organisation working on women’s rights issues, has warned that freedom of expression is central to women’s and human rights struggles. Brinda Adiga of the organisation says that women, minorities, survivors, and human rights defenders depend on the ability to speak freely to name discrimination, challenge patriarchy, and hold those in power accountable.

The organisation also points out that police discretion in speech-related offences has historically had a disproportionate and damaging impact on women and marginalised communities. “Past misuse of laws regulating speech shows that enforcement often ends up punishing the speaker rather than addressing the harm—especially when women speak truth to power,” Adiga says.

Similar concerns were raised by the Campaign Against Hate Speech, a collective that has been documenting hate crimes across Karnataka. The group noted that hate speech and violence have disproportionately targeted Dalits, Muslims, Christians, women, and the queer community. While welcoming the intent behind the legislation, the collective argued that the bill was rushed through without adequate public consultation and demanded a broader, more inclusive deliberative process before it became law.

Legal practitioners associated with the collective—Advocates Manavi Atri, Shilpa Prasad, and Vinay K. Sreenivasa—highlighted several loopholes in the bill. They cautioned that the broad and ambiguous definitions, coupled with enhanced executive powers, create a real risk of selective enforcement. According to them, the law could be misused by authorities to target political opponents, activists, and dissenting voices, rather than addressing the structural roots of hate speech.

The Legislative Assembly has passed the bill, and it will now be introduced in the Legislative Council before being sent to the Governor for assent. While the BJP has consistently opposed the legislation, arguing that it infringes on free speech, apprehensions are now also emerging from sections of civil society that have long campaigned against hate speech and hate crimes. Their concern is not with the law's stated objective, but with whether its implementation could stifle dissent and be used as yet another instrument of political control.