In recent times, India has recorded a significant rise in cases related to Hate Speech and Blasphemy. This phenomenon, noted by both the Law Commission of India and the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), has highlighted pertinent issues surrounding these two terms and their regulation within the legal system.
Understanding Hate Speech
The Law Commission of India defines Hate Speech in its 267th report as an incitement to hatred primarily targeted towards a group defined by their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, etc. Essentially, hate speech can be any word, sign, or visible representation intended to incite violence, fear, or alarm amongst individuals.
Hate Speech: Related Data
According to the NCRB, there has been an alarming escalation in cases linked to hate speech, contributing to societal animosity. As an example, in 2014, only 323 cases linked to hate speech were registered, but this figure rose starkly to 1,804 cases in 2020.
Regulations around Blasphemy
Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses Blasphemy issues in India. It penalizes any expression- be it speech, writing, or signs- that maliciously insult citizens’ religion or religious beliefs. Offenders are liable to a fine, and potentially, imprisonment up to three years.
Supreme Court’s Stand on Blasphemy
The Supreme Court of India, in the Ramji Lal Modi case (1957), affirmed the validity of Section 295(A). It reasoned that Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression for maintaining public order. Furthermore, in the Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs Ram Manohar Lohia case (1960), the Supreme Court clarified that the connection between the spoken speech and any resulting public disorder should be closely correlated for retrieving Section 295(A) of IPC.
Need for Distinction between Blasphemy and Hate Speech Laws
While both these terms fall under the purview of free speech, their misuse and the lack of clarity in their laws demand distinction. Section 295(A) is often criticized for being excessively broad. It also includes hate speech statutes, aiming to prevent prejudice and ensure equality. Nonetheless, the laws fail to clarify the difference between criticising or ridiculing religion and inciting aggression or prejudice towards a community due to their faith. This gap has led to the exploitation of the law at various administrative levels.
The Way Forward
In democratic societies, Blasphemy- which usually prohibits criticism of religion- doesn’t align with the ethos of freedom and democracy. There shouldn’t be any scrutiny of discourse or objections. Therefore, to maintain the delicate line between protecting faith and prohibiting hate speech, blasphemy should remain in law but be decriminalized. This solution could potentially help balance freedom of speech and respect towards personal beliefs.
Last Modified: February 18, 2024