Page|1

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

SOCIOLOGY

HATE SPEECH IN INDIA

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

DR. SANJAY SINGH VISHAL KUMAR ARYA

PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY 170101163

DR. RMLNLU SECTION - B

 Page|2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Introduction……………………………………………………3

 The concept of Hate Speech………………………………..4

 The Constitutional Provision………………………………..5

 Contemporary Issues of Hate Speech in India…………..7

 Conclusion……………………………………………………12

 Bibliography.............................................................................15
 Page|3

INTRODUCTION
The Present dissertation analysed the term hate speech and its regulation in India but
before interring into the debate of hate speech we should know the importance of free
speech. Freedom of speech has both intrinsic and instrumental value. It is fundamental to
the operation of a democracy and an important instrument for the functioning of the
political process. Democracy requires that an individual in society be able to hear, form,
and freely express their opinions on a wide range of matters. Freedom of expression is
also important in the search of truth. Freedom of expression, however, by permitting a
variety of viewpoints, will better contribute in the search for the truth. This does not
mean that on would arrive at a correct answer that can be verified. Freedom of speech
allows a marketplace of ideas leading to a more vibrant and progressive society,
which leads to the next important justification. Freedom of expression is intrinsically
important in that it allows the growth of the human personality. It is a freedom
that allows human beings to express and define themselves.

Written constitutional and bills of rights invariably protect freedom of speech as one
of the fundamental liberties guaranteed against state suppression or regulation.
Political philosophers have argued for liberty of opinions and discussions, or for a free
speech principle under which speech is entitled to a greater degree of immunity from
regulation than other forms of conduct which cause similar harm or offence. 1 Yet
philosophers and lawyers disagree about the justifications for a free speech principle
or indeed whether there are any good reasons for treating free speech as special.
As one leading philosopher has put it, ‘freedom of expression is a liberal puzzle’. It is
prized by liberals for reasons they may not understand. 2 It is difficult to determine
what type of speech is restricted. Even when it is possible to infer a particular intent,
it should hardly be decisive for litigation arising some decades or centuries after the
constitution was framed. Political and social circumstances will have changed so radically

1
J.S. Mill’s classic essay, ’of the Liberty of Thoughts and Discussion’, available at
http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit4/mill/MillTruth.pdf.

2
R.M. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, 132-7.
 Page|4

that It would be absurd to be limited to the particular conceptions of a freedom

entertained by the members of a constitutional assembly.

Freedom of speech and expression ”constitutes one of the essential foundation of such
a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every
man.” But however vast the scope of freedom of expression, some restrictions to
the exercise of this right may in some circumstances be necessary. Unlike the right
to freedom of thought, the right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right.
The exercise of this freedom carries with it certain duties responsibilities and is
subjected to certain restrictions as set out in the provision of a legal system.

A hatred speech must be restricted, because it is anti-social and any promotion of it

can destroy a society. Every society is based on some moral fabric if the moral
fabric of that society is destroyed then a society may collapse. So a free speech and
some reasonable restriction on it both are essential for a society.3

The CONCEPT OF HATE SPEECH

No universally accepted definition of the term “hate speech” exists, despite its frequent
usage. Though most states have adopted legislation banning expressions amounting to
“hate speech”, definitions differ slightly when determining what is being banned. Only
the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers” Recommendation 97(20) on “hate
speech” defined it as follows: “ the term “hate speech” shall be understood as covering
all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia,
anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance
expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility
against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.” In this sense, “hate
speech” covers comments which are necessarily directed against a person or a
particular group of persons. The term is also found in European case-law, although

3
https://book.coe.int/ftp/3342.pdf accessed on 7th oct 2013.
 Page|5

the Court has never given a precise definition of it. The court simply refers in some
of its judgments to “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote justify
hatred based on intolerance.” It is important to note that this is an autonomous
concept, in so far as the court does not consider itself bound by the domestic courts”
classification. As a result, it sometime rebuts classifications adopted by national courts
or, on the contrary, classifies certain statements as “hate speech”, even when domestic
courts ruled out this classification.

The concept of “hate speech” encompasses a multiplicity of situation’s :

• Firstly, incitement of racial hatred or in other words, hatred directed against

persons or groups of persons on the grounds of belonging to a race;
• Secondly, incitement to hatred on religious grounds, to which may be equated
incitement to hatred on the basis of a distinction between believers and non-
believers; and
• Lastly, incitement to other forms of hatred based on intolerance “expressed by
aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism”

The concept of hate thus:

“Hatred connotes an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated
with vilification and detestation. It is an emotion that, if exercised against members of
an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied
respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.”4

The problem of hate speech is that its contents are not certain. The concept of hate
speech keeps changing. But again we have to consider that the concept of hate speech
is based on hatred emotion against a particular group or community. The ill will behind
the expression is the key to determine the concept of hate speech. So racial hatred is
the base to determine the concept of hate speech.

4
The Canadian Supreme Court in R.V. Keegstra (1990) 3 S.C.R. 697.
 Page|6

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right of all citizens ‘to freedom of speech and
Expression’. This right, however, is not expressed in absolute terms (as in the American
Constitution) Rather, it is subject to article 19(2), which allows the State to make laws
imposing ‘reasonable restrictions’ upon freedom of speech and expression in the
interests of ‘the sovereignty and integrity of India’, ‘the security of the
State’, ‘friendly relations with foreign States’, ‘public order’, ‘decency or morality’
or in relation to ‘contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence’.
It is under the ground of ‘public order’ that India has prohibited and penalized ‘hate speech’.
The Supreme Court have justified the restrictions on free speech imposed by article
19(2) on utilitarian grounds: some restrictions on freedom may be necessary so that
others may also enjoy their liberties. As noted by Sastri J in A. K. Gopalan (1950):

‘Man, as a rational being, desires to do many things, but in civil society his desires
have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by
other individuals… Liberty has, therefore, to be limited in order to be effectively
possessed.’5

As defined in Ram Manohar Lohia (1960), such public order is necessary for citizens
to ‘peacefully pursue their normal avocations of life.’6 As the Supreme Court put it in
Praveen Bhai Thogadia (Dr) (2004), the right to freedom of expression ‘may at times
have to be subjected to reasonable subordination to social interests, needs and necessities
to preserve the very core of democratic life – preservation of public order and rule of
law.’7

In stark contrast to the United States,8 ‘public order’ restrictions upon free speech in

5
A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27, 69.
6
Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia AIR 1960 SC 633.
7
Baragur Ramachandrappa and ors v State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 11.
8
Police Department of Chicago v Mosley, 408 US 92 (1972); Boos v Barry, 485 US 312 (1988);
R. A. V. v City of St Paul, 505 US 377 (1992).
 Page|7

India may include ‘content based’ restrictions, penalising speech based upon the opinions
or ideologies expressed within in the interests of public order. 9 ‘Hate speech’ may hence
be lawfully prohibited or restricted

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF HATE SPECCH INDIA

1. Ayodhya riots

In the valance of Ajodhya main role is play by Hindu associations like Vishva Hindu
Parishad, Bajrang Dal ,Shiv Shena and Bhartiya Janta Party main leaders of temple
movement of Ajodhya are Mahant Ram chand Das Paramhans from Digamber akhada
Ashok Shinghal, Praveen Togadiya, Acharya Giriraj Kishore,Uma bharati,Sadhavi
Ritambhara ,Mahant avaidh nath,Kalyan Singh,Atal bihari Vajpayee,Lal Krishan
Advani,Murli manohar joshi, Rajmata vijya raje sindhiya etc. these are the main leaders
of temple movement in Ajodhya Mahant nritya gopal das is the chief of the committee
which initiate this temple movement Lal krishan Advani is another important leader who
is the main leader of this movement because he started rath yatra to bring the awareness
about the movement.

Role of various leaders in Ayodhya movement:

Kalyan Singh –

He was the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh at the time of babri masjid demolition he
is famous for his remarks made by him in the answer of mulayam singh yadav’s
comment on babri issue. During his government Babri masjid was demolished by the
extremist after this he resigned from the post of chief minister and said that “Ram ke
naam par ek nahi saikdo satta kurban” when he was sent to jail for one day by the

9
Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 620 (“Ramji Lal Modi”); Virendra v State
of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 896; V. Vengan and ors, In re (1951) 2 MLJ 241.
 Page|8

court he said “ram ke liye ek din kya poori jindagi bhi jail me gujarne ko tayar hoon”
due to his furious speeches he was successful to become again the chief minister of
uttar Pradesh in the year of 1997 he is the person who get the maximum advantage of
the temple movement.

Dr. Murli Manohar joshi –

He was the professor of physics in the Allahabad university later he came in the role
of speaker of hardcore Hindutva. He was the chief spokesperson from BJP during the
period of temple movement, on the date of 6th December he was in Ajodhya with
Advani and he was one of the major speaker after whose speech public became
aggressive and destroy the Babri masjid. Before this he travelled across India with his
“Ekta Yatra” and try to create a wave of communalism against Muslims and in the
favor of the temple movement.

Vinay Katiyar -

He is the chief coordinator of Bajrang dal and leader of BJP at the time of Babri
demolition he is the main person who attract youth towards the temple movement . He
is famous for his unique speaking skills which attract the attention of not only domestic
media but also international media.

Ashok Singhal

He raise the issue of temples at Ajodhya, Kashi and Mathura in the year of 1982 and
by this he bring the issue of Hindutva at the centre of the nation’s politics he is main
person in the Ram janambhumi movement. He is the person who convert the simple
movement of Ramchand paramhans in to the big Ajodhya movement he bring all the
religious leaders at one stage.
 Page|9

2. Hate Speech by Varun Gandhi

Varun Gandhi in his election speeches (march 2009) has been pouring vitriol against
minority community. He presented the usual prejudices and biases in a very hateful
manner. He pointed out that arms are being smuggled into ghettoes(i.e. Muslim
community locality). As far as the issue of communalism is concerned, it would be
surprising to know that the number of people killed in communal violence in the last
50 years is lesser than the people killed in street crimes in the city of Detroit alone.
Two million people were killed during the Partition violence, which again is below the
five million people involved in separatist movements in various parts of the country.
These statistics reveal that communalism is not as grave and hopeless a problem as is
made out to be.10

During the communal riots that rocked the nation in 1992, following the demolition
of the Babri Masjid, a Hindu family gave refuge to an old Muslim man. The man
was provided refuge in the room of their young daughter-in-law. When the rioters went
scouting door-to-door to kill any Muslims they could get hold of, the host family saved
the old man’s life by introducing him as their daughter-in-law’s uncle. While this entire
drama was unfolding, the son of the house went missing. Many days later when the
riots subsided and the old man rejoined his family, a prayer was held for the safe
return of the son. It was only later that they came to know that the son who had gone
missing was a part of the mob that destroyed the Babri Masjid. This story reveals two
facts: 1) There can be internal contradictions between the members of a single household
on communal issues; and 2) Common people of both communities have come to each
other’s rescue during riots. All these prove that communalism is a complex phenomenon
and has many facets.

10
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Varun-Gandhi-fixed-hate-speech-
caseReport/Article1-1060612.aspx visited on 11th oct 2013
 P a g e | 10

3. Hate Speech by Raj Thackeray

Raj Thackeray, whose Maharashtra Navanirman Sena has made impressive strides in
a short time after breaking away from the Shiv Sena, by making ill-advised remarks
about North Indians in Mumbai. He has a promising political future. He is talking about
MARATHI MANUS. According to him North Indians are snatching the job of Marathi
people and also destroying Marathi culture and tradition.11

Small regional leaders like Raj Thackeray doesn’t have any ideology their
politics is totally based upon the hatred they have no issue so they risen
up the issue of regionalism which is not permitted in Indian law,
instead of knowing this fact they come again and again on the same
issue of regionalism they tried to build their politics on the negative basis
which is not long-lasting and soon they have to face consequences of
this.

11
http://www.ndtv.com/topic/thackeray-hate-speech visited on 11th oct 2013
 P a g e | 11

4. Hate Speech by Akbaruddin Owaisi

Akbaruddin Owaisi (born 14 June 1970) is a politician based in Hyderabad, Telangana and an
MLA of the Telangana Legislative Assembly.[1] He belongs to All India Majlis-e Ittihad al-
Muslimin and is its floor leader in the Telengana Legislative Assembly.

Whilespeaking at a rally in Kurnool in 2011, Owaisi used the lderogatory terms Kafirs and
Kufrastan to refer to MLAs in Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and the Legislative
Assembly.In the same rally he used the Urdu words katil (murderer), darinda (monster),
beimaan (dishonest), dhokebaaz (cheat), and chor (thief) for the former Prime Minister of India
P V Narasimha Rao. Owaisi said that if Rao had not died, he (Owaisi) would have killed Rao
with his own hands.

In November 2012, Owaisi spoke in Hyderabad, referring to the police force of Andhra Pradesh
using the derogatory phrase "army of impotent people".He then incited the audience by
challenging the Chief Minister to remove the police and thensee who hasmore power.He further
added that they (Hindus or the police force) do not have the courage to fight Muslims.Owaisi
claimed in another speech that"lakhs (hundreds of thousands) of Muslims were killed after
Indian independence.

On 8 December 2012, while speaking at Nizamabad, Owaisi made fun of Hindu festivals by
saying "we (Muslims) have only two festivals, they have so many – one every 10days."He
referred to the Bhagyalakshmi temple in Hyderabad several times as"illegal temple".

On 12 December 2012, Owaisi made derogatory remarks with hand gestures about Hindu
goddess Bhagyalakshmi at a public rally in Nizamabad.He said making hand gestures – "She,
who is sitting," and added, "What is this new name Bhagyalakshmi, never heard of her. Shout
such slogans such that the Bhagya also shakes and Lakshmi also falls down."
 P a g e | 12

CONCLUSION
“kaun si baat kab, kahan, kaise kahi jaati hai agar is baat ka salika hai to har baat
suni jaati hai.”

-Wassem brelvi.12

The meaning of above sentence is, everyone will listen you if you have the proper
manner of talking, you have to think before speaking because you’re word can
cause harm to others. So the power of word is limitless, no one can imagine how
far it can harm the humanity or human being. It goes too far and disrupts the
security or stability of the community by inciting members of the public to harmful
action or deceiving them on an important public matter. By the history we can see
that word can cause genocide or massacre, it can provoke people, it can humiliate
people and it can destroy peoples. A committee which is constituted on communal
violence, reported that the speech by a eminent person of society against a particular
group of members is main element of the riot. The report of committee shows the impact
of speech. An offensive speech has power to cause religious riots, communal riots or
massacre.

Fair use of free speech is concept which depends on the context in which it is said.
They serve different ends at different times. Sometimes a speech is just a speech other
times it become hate speech. Context is clearly of the greatest important in assessing
whether particular statement are likely to incite hatred- as it may have bearing on both
intent and causation- and many of the hate speech cases refers to contextual factors.
The exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and
responsibilities. These special duties and responsibilities are of particular relevance within
a social system.

Deciding factor for harm principle

12
http://www.kavitakosh.org/kk/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0
%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%80 visited on 11th oct 2013
 P a g e | 13

Consider a case of hate speech, incitement of violence or making of death threats. A clear
and intended causal effect must be drawn between the act of expression and the harm done.
This is the only legitimate way in which the Harm Principle can be evoked to restrict certain
forms of speech.

In order to violate the harm principle, there must be some kind of action with intent
to humiliate, insult, degrade or harass a particular group, religion, cast, race or
community. That is, one must express intent towards futhering harmful acts for the
harm principle to be violated.

Hence to prevent harm government should take positive measure to cap the hate speech
and while taking the action against hate speech government must consider the general
moral standard of society. A government may put restraints upon the free speech
principle, but only when;

1. The restrictions are determined by law;

2. The restrictions exist to secure the respect for the rights and freedoms of others
and;

3. The restriction is meant for the purpose of “meeting the just requirements of
morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

A HATE SPEECH is an expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating or harassing

and which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against a religion, caste, race,
community, nationality, colour or gender.

The identification criterion of hate speech is, if it;

a) Is intended to insult or stigmatize an individual or a small number of individuals on basis

of their sex, race, colour, handicap, religion, sexual orientation, or national and ethnic origin;
and

b) Is addressed directly to the individual or individuals whom it insults or stigmatizes; and

c) Makes use of insulting or “fighting” words or non-verbal symbols.

 P a g e | 14

But the problem of hate speech is that its contents are not certain. The concept of hate
speech is keep changing. Again we have to consider that the concept of hate speech is
based on hatred emotion against a particular group or community. The ill will behind
the expression is the key to determine the concept of hate speech. So racial hatred,
religious hatred, cast hatred and incitement of other forms of hatred is the base to
determine the concept of hate speech.
 P a g e | 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. http://communalism.blogspot.in/2009/03/varun-gandhi-hate-speech-shocks-india.html

2. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/communal-violence

3. http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/india-violence-internet-twitter-assam-

faidINDEE87K09Z20120821

4. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-today-editor-in-chief-aroon-purie-oncommunal-

violence/1/214544.html

5. http://twocircles.net/2012jul30/communal_violence_muslims_india.html

6. Communalism & Communal Riots In India A Historical Preview by Pravin Kumar

7. COMMUNAL RIOTS IN POST INDEPENDENCE INDIA(CC) by A. A. Engineer

8. http://www.siasat.com/video/hyderabad/akbaruddin-owaisi-anti-hinducommunal-hate-

9. http://www.ndtv.com/topic/owaisi-hate-speech

10. Books on :Constitution of India