Hate Speech Laws in India - A Conundrum To Crack

10/10/2018 HATE SPEECH LAWS IN INDIA – A CONUNDRUM TO CRACK
There is no legal meaning. It’s just a phrase…Hate speech is in the ear of the
beholder.” – Mark Potok, Editor-in-Chief, Intelligence Report
THE NOTION OF HATE SPEECH
Our present untimely times seem to be oriented towards a taxonomy of social
threats, staged as a readiness to claim ‘hurt’ as both lived experience and a
cause for political sanctuary. [1] From the political register of hate and its
outrage, events such as banning and burning of books and several hate
speeches for political mileage by the politicians during election campaigns are
symptomatic of larger tendencies in political expression of hate.
Martin Luther King once purported that, ‘like an unchecked cancer, hate
corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s
sense of values and his objectivity’. Hatred, in itself, is not a pre-existing
condition; it is a manifestation of exposed circumstances, time, as well as the
opinions of others as transposed onto one’s self.[2] Broadly speaking, ‘hate
speech’ is derogatory towards someone else.[3]Hate speech, while not
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hate-speech-laws-india-conundrum-crack-suvidutt-sundaram 1/23
universally accepted in definition, can be understood as the ‘promotion,
endorsement and encouragement of a vilification of others based on innate
differences’.[4] The definitions of ‘hate speech’ typically depend on the
cultural and moral ethos of any society; when societies have been well-
defined, for example through geography, it was relatively easier to reach a
consensus on such a definition.[5] The rise of the internet, a global means of
communication, has stripped away such geographical boundaries.[6]
Etymologically, ‘Hate Speech’ is speech designed to promote hatred on the
basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.[7] They may be
distinguished from parallel crimes – crimes that are similar in every manner
but for the absence of bias motivation – in terms of the mental state of the
actor as well as the nature of the harm caused. A parallel crime may be
motivated by a specific, personal and group-based reason: the victim’s real or
perceived membership in a particular group.[8]
Hate speech as a cause of discrimination towards a group, has existed
throughout the ages and is still most pertinent in this modern world, where
social media and broadcasting reach millions with the click of a button
without fear of reprisal or the need for intensive research. The social media
and the internet as forms of disseminating malicious intent and hatred
between groups are rife. Hate speech may be a symptom of hatred amongst a
few, but it has the power to stir and plant the seeds of the same hatred in
many.[9]
Hate Speech is no simply reserved for dissidents, for rebels and for extremist
individuals. It is often those in power who have the means and intent to
disseminate hatred, in pursuit of a political goal.[10] How true was Samuel P.
Huntington, the American theorist, who suggested that, often, hate speech is a
means of implementing a political agenda: it may be cited by people with
interests in creating, enflaming and maintaining such divides in society to
further their own individual or party ends?[11]
Although there is no uniform definition of hate speech across the globe, hate
speech creates a widening divide among the public. In succinct, hateful
expressions bring divisive forces into play, victimizing the identity of the
vulnerable.
HATE SPEECH IN INDIA – ROOTS TO RAMIFICATIONS
Sigmund Freud famously stated that ‘humans have only two types of instincts:
those which seek to preserve and unite, and those which seek to destroy and
kill’.[12] Samuel P. Huntigton in his article[13]asserts that, in a culturally
diverse nation, where everyday individuals regard each other as separate and
unlike, a common other, a ‘they’, must appear in order for the individuals to
relate to each other. ‘You’ and ‘I’ become ‘we’ when a ‘they’ appears. Therefore,
India being a cultural mosaic, this ‘we’ and ‘they’ feeling was there since ages,
although India apparently was and is a land of diverse religious beliefs and
traditions. From Mughals to British, the transition of history may be unquiet,
but the worse happened undoubtedly during the times of colonial rule
dividing India on religious lines.
As Rajeev Dhavan[14] notes, India’s hate speech offences are largely ‘a legacy
of the British’. These provisions were viewed, by the British, as a necessary
expedient to maintaining security and stability in their colonial territories:
‘From the point of view of the British, the purpose of the hate speech
provisions was to avoid communal tension, irrespective of who was right or
wrong’.[15] The importance of ‘hate speech’ laws in the British project of
maintaining stability in India(necessary for the perpetuation of colonial rule),
and the extent to which the British perceived Indian colonial subjects as
uniquely vulnerable to religious insults, are made clear by Macaulay’s
commentary on ‘Offences Relating to Religion and Caste’ within the Indian
Penal Code.[16]
Having close proximity with hate speech is the term ‘sedition’ and the roots of
hate speech laws in India can be traced from it. The word ‘sedition’ which
occurred in Article 13 (2) of the draft Constitution prepared by the Drafting
Committee was deleted before the Article 19 (2) was finally passed. In this
connection it may be recalled that the Federal Court had, in defining sedition
in NiharenduDutt v. Emperor[17], held that ‘the acts or words complained of
must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men
that that is their intention or tendency’, but the Privy Council overruled that
decision and emphatically reaffirmed the view expressed in Queen-Empress v.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak,[18] to the effect that ‘the offence consisted in exciting
or attempting to excite in others certain bad feelings towards the government
and not in exciting or attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion, or any sort of
actual disturbance, great or small’.[19]
But the framers of the Constitution may well have reflected with Madison who
was ‘the leading spirit in the preparation of the First Amendment of the
Federal Constitution’, that ‘it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to
their luxuriant growth than, by pruning them away to injure the vigor of those
yielding the proper fruits’.[20] Eventually, India by way of constitutionalism
had withstood the pulls and pressures of discordant forces for decades.
However, the noxious praxis even now erupts sporadically from certain
pockets.
Statistically, in 2006, there were 32,407 reported incidents of caste-based
violence across India barring Jammu & Kashmir.[21] In 2015, there were 751
recorded incidents of communal violence in India, in which 97 people were
killed and 2,264 people injured.[22] It has been suggested that hate speech is
used as a ‘vehicle to further a political agenda’.[23]
According to an analysis conducted byIndiaSpend[24] based on self-
disclosed crime records of candidates who have contested various elections
nationwide over the last 12 years, candidates with hate-speech cases against
them were three times more successful in elections compared to those without
a criminal record. To put these data in perspective, over the last 12 years, 10%
of candidates with no criminal cases won elections, while the figure was 20%
for candidates with criminal cases of any kind. As many as 70 members of
Parliament (MPs) and members of legislative assemblies (MLAs) have hate-
speech cases pending against them, according to their own disclosures to the
Election Commission of India.
A systemic strategizing against the proliferation of hate is the desideratum. No
preaching, rather pragmatism through the existing machinery is the need.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTOUR
In a plural democracy, there is always a conflict between different narratives
and interpretation of what constitutes public interest. Democracy thrives on
disagreements provided they do not cross the boundaries of civil discourse.
Critical and dissenting voices are important for a vibrant society. However,
care must be taken to prevent public discourse from becoming a tool to
promote speech inimical to public order. The mode of exercise, the context
and the extent of abuse of freedom are important in determining the contours
of permissible restrictions.[25]
The Constitution acknowledges that liberty cannot be absolute or
uncontrolled and makes provisions in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19
authorizing the State to restrict the exercise of the freedom guaranteed under
that Article within the limits specified in those clauses. Thus, clause (2) of
Article 19, as subsequently amended by the Constitution (First Amendment)
Act, 1951 and the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, enabled the
legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to
freedom of speech and expression in the interests of (i) the security of the
State and sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) friendly relations with foreign
States, (iii) public order, (iv) decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of
court, defamation or incitement to an offence.[26]
The standard applied for restricting Article 19 (1) (a) is the highest when
imposed in the interest of security of the State. Also, a reasonable restriction
under Article 19 (2) implies that the relation between restriction and public
order has to be proximate and direct as opposed to a remote or fanciful
connection.[27] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supdt. Central Prison v. Dr.
Ram Manohar Lohia[28] held that there does indeed have to be a
compromise between the interest of freedom of expression and social
interests. But we cannot simply balance the two interests as if they are of
equal weight. Our commitment to freedom of expression demands that it
cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom
are pressing and the community interest is endangered. The anticipated
danger should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It should have
proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought
should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest. In other words, the
expression should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like
the equivalent of a "spark in a powder keg"[29]
LEGISLATIONS AND LAW COMMISSION’S SUGGESTIONS
It must be recognized that freedom of speech and expression is one of the
most valuable rights guaranteed to a citizen of India by the Constitution and
has been jealously guarded by the courts.[30] Hate speech has not been
defined so far in any law in India. However, legal provisions in certain
legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of
speech and currently, the legislations bearing hate speech are as follows:
(i) The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC)
Section 124A IPC penalizes sedition. Section 153A IPC penalizes ‘promotion of
enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of
harmony’. Further, Section 153B IPC penalizes ‘imputations, assertions
prejudicial to national-integration’. Chapter XV of IPC deals with offences
relating to religion. It includes, Section 295A IPC that penalizes ‘deliberate
and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by
insulting its religion or religious beliefs’. The same chapter by way of Section
298 IPC penalizes ‘uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the
religious feelings of any person’. Lastly, Section 505 (1) and (2) of IPC
penalizes publication or circulation of any statement, rumour or report
causing public mischief and enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan
v. Union of India & Ors.[31], observed that the issue of hate speech deserved
deeper consideration by the Law Commission of India. Therefore, the Law
Commission of India after taking in view the laws and various judgments on
hate speech had submitted its Report No.267 before the Government of India
in March, 2017 for consideration. The Commission suggested amendments to
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by adding new provisions on ‘Prohibiting
incitement to hatred’ following Section 153B of IPC and ‘causing fear, alarm,
or provocation of violence in certain cases’ following Section 505 of IPC.
The Law Commission of India in its Report No.267 gave suggestions under the
title ‘Hate Speech’ which enclosed The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2017.
It attempted to insert a new Section 153C prohibiting incitement to hatred and
read as follows:
"153 C. Whoever on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender
identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or
tribe -
(a) uses gravely threatening words either spoken or written, signs, visible
representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to
cause, fear or alarm; or
(b) advocates hatred by words either spoken or written, signs, visible
representations, that causes incitement to violence shall be punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
and fine up to Rs 5000, or with both.".
Further, the Commission has suggested inserting new Section 505A after
Section 505. The Section 505A deals with fear, alarm, or provocation of
violence in certain cases and read as follows:
"505 A. Whoever in public intentionally on grounds of religion, race, caste or
community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence,
language, disability or tribe- uses words, or displays any writing, sign, or other
visible representation which is gravely threatening, or derogatory;
(i) within the hearing or sight of a person, causing fear or alarm, or;
(ii) with the intent to provoke the use of unlawful violence, against that person
or another, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one year and/or fine up to Rs 5000, or both".
(ii) The Representation of People Act, 1951
Section 8 disqualifies a person from contesting election if he is convicted for
indulging in acts amounting to illegitimate use of freedom of speech and
expression. Further, Section 123(3A) and Section 125 prohibits promotion of
enmity on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language in
connection with election as a corrupt electoral practice and prohibits it.
(iii) The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
Section 7 penalizes incitement to, and encouragement of untouchability
through words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representations or otherwise.
(iv) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 95 of CrPC empowers the State Government, to forfeit publications
that are punishable under sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 292, 293 or 295A of IPC.
Section 107 of the Code empowers the Executive Magistrate to prevent a
person from committing a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility
or to do any wrongful act that may probably cause breach of the peace or
disturb the public tranquility.
Section 144 empowers the District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or
any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government
in this behalf to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended
danger. The above offences are cognizable. Thus, have serious repercussions
on liberties of citizens and empower a police officer to arrest without orders
from a magistrate and without a warrant as in section 155 of CrPC.
The Law Commission of India[32] has suggested amending the First
Schedule of the CrPC related to the amendment in Section 153C and Section
505A of IPC.
(v) The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988
Section 3 (g) of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988
prohibits religious institution or its manager to allow the use of any premises
belonging to, or under the control of, the institution for promoting or
attempting to promote disharmony, feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will
between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities.
(vi) The Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995
Sections 5 and 6 of the Act prohibit transmission or re-transmission of a
programme through cable network in contravention to the prescribed
programme code or advertisement code. These codes have been defined in
Rule 6 and 7 respectively of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994.
JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS
It is apparent that Indian hate speech laws have an uneasy relationship with
international freedom of expression norms and with Indian constitutional
principles. While constitutional jurisprudence does clarify the threshold and
standards, Indian jurisprudence on this question is not clear or uniform.
[33] Upendra Baxi wrote provocatively of the Indian Supreme Court, saying
that it exhibits a “growing lack of precedent-consciousness.”[34]
There can be no doubt that freedom of speech and expression includes
freedom of propagation of ideas,[35] but individual has no such right of
propagation of his idea when it is squarely coming in the domain of threat to
security of state, public order or incitement of an offence.[36] In Indian
Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India,[37] the Supreme
Court delineated four broad social purposes of freedom of speech and
expression; Firstly, it helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment, Secondly it
assists in the discovery of truth; thirdly, it strengthens the capacity of an
individual in participating in decision‐making and lastly, it provides a
mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance
between stability and social change.
The Supreme Court in Babu Rao Patel v. State (Delhi Admn.),[38] was faced
with the task of distinguishing speech violative of Section 153-A from political
thesis and historical truths, which are what the author of the two articles
under scrutiny, claimed they were. The Apex Court examining the two articles
held that the first entitled, ‘A Tale of Two Communalisms’ was an undisguised
attempt to promote feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between the Hindu
and the Muslim communities. The reference to the alleged Muslim tradition of
rape, loot, violence and murder and the alleged terror struck into the hearts of
Hindu minority in a neighboring country by periodical killings, in the context
of his thesis that communalism is the instrument of a militant minority can
lead to no other inference.[39] Similarly on an examination of the second
article entitled, ‘Lingering Disgrace of History’, purported as a protest against
naming of Delhi Roads after Moghul emperors, the Supreme Court held that it
was convinced that both the articles do promote feelings of enmity, hatred and
ill-will between the Hindus and Muslims on grounds of community.[40]
In Das Rao Deshmukh (Dr.) v. Kamal Kishore Nanasaheb Kadam[41] the
Supreme Court considered a poster where the appellant appealed for votes to
teach a lesson to Muslims. The Supreme Court held that: “16. Such appeal, to
say the least, was potentially offensive and was likely to rouse passion in the
minds of the voters on communal basis. Such appeal to teach a lesson was also
likely to bring disharmony between the two communities, namely, the Hindus
and the Muslims and offended the secular structure of the country.”[42] The
Supreme Court noted that speeches delivered in elections had to be
appreciated dispassionately keeping in mind their context as the atmosphere
is often surcharged with partisan feelings and emotions. Keeping these factors
in mind, the Supreme Court found that the poster cannot be justified in any
manner even by giving reasonable latitudes in election speeches.[43]
Sri Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnataka[44] represents one of
the more problematic moments of the Supreme Court’s ambiguous
engagement with free speech.[45] The Supreme Court held: ‘no person has a
right to impinge on the feelings of others on the premise that his right to
freedom of speech remains unrestricted and unfettered. It cannot be ignored
that India is country with vast disparities in language, culture and religion and
unwarranted and malicious criticism or interference in the faith of others
cannot be accepted.’[46]
In Bal Thackeray case,[47] the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held: ‘In a
secular polity, the requirement of correct behavior or propriety is that an
appeal for votes should not be made on the ground of the candidate’s religion
which by itself is no index of the suitability of a candidate for membership of
the house.’[48] In Hindutva cases[49], the Supreme Court had made curious
distinction between asking vote on ‘caste, creed and religion base’ and ‘making
a Hindu state’ which is not a religion but a ‘way of life’ of the people in the
sub-continent and ‘is a state of mind’.
While striking down Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000
relating to restriction on online speech, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India,[50] held that the speech must
amount to incitement in order to be restricted. This is an accepted norm to
limit speech. The imminent threat to lawless action test laid down by United
States Supreme Court also echoes the same reasoning.[51]
However, recently the Supreme Court in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen
(Dead) By Lrs. & Ors.,[52]held that seeking votes in the name of religion,
caste or community amounted to corrupt practice and election of a candidate
who indulged in it can be set aside. The bench was interpreting word ‘his’ in
Section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and the majority
interpreted that the Parliament meant by ‘his’ a complete ban on any
reference or appeal to religion, race, community, caste and language during
elections. This meant the pronoun extended to the social, linguistic and
religious identity of the voter also.
The confusion created by the courts is unlimited. Interpretation after
interpretation of statutory provisions has created a conundrum. Through the
judicial spectacle, people are seen incapable. Mehta[53] figure out that ‘the
courts assume throughout that citizens are, when it comes to receiving
religious speech, or speech about religion, incapable of managing the
impressions they receive… we are incapable of receiving the expression on our
own terms; incapable of managing our own responses; condemned to
receiving these expressions unfreely and helplessly; incapable as it were, of
self-discipline’.
James Scott[54] has argued, for every public transcript of the dominant,
there exists a parallel ‘hidden transcript’ of the oppressed, that occurs ‘off-
stage’. The problem with taking the visible public culture as the culture
of all society, involves therefore, a double-silencing of certain voices: an initial
silencing at the time of the production of culture, and a contemporary
silencing when, in court, the dominant public culture is taken to include all of
society.[55]
SUMMATION
Hate speeches are generally used for pseudo-domination or sometime an
attempt to overshadow the other’s religion and culture.[56] It not only assails
the targeted social group, but also causes a sense of vulnerability within them,
and eventually the impact may spread across the general society. Such crime
may disrupt the social harmony in a plural society. Therefore, the State ought
to take action as per law to contain the menace of hate speech.
However, the desideratum is that the Indian law on hate speech needs to be
reviewed. Various sections of the hate speech law relating to promoting
enmity between groups and classes and disturbing the peace[57] and on the
deliberate insult to a religion[58] are too subjective. Such a law is too broad.
On a plain reading, it means that if peoples’ feelings are upset, the law can be
invoked. Even if a more objective view is taken, it is eventually the judiciary
that decides whether the work would be regarded as offensive by the
proverbial reasonable man – which, in this case – is the judge himself.
[59] The Indian laws on hate speech so far were a conundrum but the
suggestions given by the Law Commission of India if taken seriously by the
Parliament and resultantly with necessary amendments in the statutes may
spell out much better socio-political landscape.
Freedom of Speech is nothing without the freedom to ‘offend, shock or
disturb’.[60] Courts need to meticulously strike a balance between rights and
restrictions. Space for hate speech shall not be let open and so have to raise
the level of tolerance in people. After all, in this land of Buddha and Gandhi,
where civilization cradled, where cultural and plural ethos prevails, what is
hate speech to do with? We the people of India shall strive for upholding the
values embedded in the sacred Constitutional parchment and to render the
Preambular pledge.
End notes:
[1] Rina Ramdev, Sandhya Devesan Nambiar and Debaditya Bhattacharya,
(Ed.), Preface, ‘Sentiment, Politics, Censorship’, Sage Publication, New Delhi,
(2016).
[2] Weinman, Michael, “State Speech vs. Hate Speech: What to do about
Words that Wound?”, Essays in Philosophy Vol 7: Issue 1, Article 18 (2006),
14.
[3] Bhatia, Gautam, ‘Offend, Shock, or Disturb – Free Speech under the
Indian

Hate Speech Laws in India - A Conundrum To Crack

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hate Speech Laws in India - A Conundrum To Crack

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

10/10/2018 HATE SPEECH LAWS IN INDIA – A CONUNDRUM TO CRACK

beholder.” – Mark Potok, Editor-in-Chief, Intelligence Report

THE NOTION OF HATE SPEECH

Our present untimely times seem to be oriented towards a taxonomy of social

threats, staged as a readiness to claim ‘hurt’ as both lived experience and a

symptomatic of larger tendencies in political expression of hate.

sense of values and his objectivity’. Hatred, in itself, is not a pre-existing

condition; it is a manifestation of exposed circumstances, time, as well as the

opinions of others as transposed onto one’s self.[2] Broadly speaking, ‘hate

speech’ is derogatory towards someone else.[3]Hate speech, while not

universally accepted in definition, can be understood as the ‘promotion,

endorsement and encouragement of a vilification of others based on innate

differences’.[4] The definitions of ‘hate speech’ typically depend on the

defined, for example through geography, it was relatively easier to reach a

consensus on such a definition.[5] The rise of the internet, a global means of

communication, has stripped away such geographical boundaries.[6]

Etymologically, ‘Hate Speech’ is speech designed to promote hatred on the

basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.[7] They may be

motivated by a specific, personal and group-based reason: the victim’s real or

perceived membership in a particular group.[8]

Hate speech as a cause of discrimination towards a group, has existed

and the internet as forms of disseminating malicious intent and hatred

disseminate hatred, in pursuit of a political goal.[10] How true was Samuel P.

means of implementing a political agenda: it may be cited by people with

interests in creating, enflaming and maintaining such divides in society to

further their own individual or party ends?[11]

speech creates a widening divide among the public. In succinct, hateful

HATE SPEECH IN INDIA – ROOTS TO RAMIFICATIONS

kill’.[12] Samuel P. Huntigton in his article[13]asserts that, in a culturally

traditions. From Mughals to British, the transition of history may be unquiet,

dividing India on religious lines.

of the British’. These provisions were viewed, by the British, as a necessary

expedient to maintaining security and stability in their colonial territories:

provisions was to avoid communal tension, irrespective of who was right or

wrong’.[15] The importance of ‘hate speech’ laws in the British project of

maintaining stability in India(necessary for the perpetuation of colonial rule),

uniquely vulnerable to religious insults, are made clear by Macaulay’s

commentary on ‘Offences Relating to Religion and Caste’ within the Indian

occurred in Article 13 (2) of the draft Constitution prepared by the Drafting

in NiharenduDutt v. Emperor[17], held that ‘the acts or words complained of

must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men

decision and emphatically reaffirmed the view expressed in Queen-Empress v.

or attempting to excite in others certain bad feelings towards the government

and not in exciting or attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion, or any sort of

actual disturbance, great or small’.[19]

yielding the proper fruits’.[20] Eventually, India by way of constitutionalism

Statistically, in 2006, there were 32,407 reported incidents of caste-based

recorded incidents of communal violence in India, in which 97 people were

used as a ‘vehicle to further a political agenda’.[23]

According to an analysis conducted byIndiaSpend[24] based on self-

disclosed crime records of candidates who have contested various elections

for candidates with criminal cases of any kind. As many as 70 members of

Parliament (MPs) and members of legislative assemblies (MLAs) have hate-

Election Commission of India.

A systemic strategizing against the proliferation of hate is the desideratum. No

preaching, rather pragmatism through the existing machinery is the need.

In a plural democracy, there is always a conflict between different narratives

and interpretation of what constitutes public interest. Democracy thrives on

disagreements provided they do not cross the boundaries of civil discourse.

care must be taken to prevent public discourse from becoming a tool to

The Constitution acknowledges that liberty cannot be absolute or

uncontrolled and makes provisions in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19

Article 19, as subsequently amended by the Constitution (First Amendment)