Briefing on India’s Hate Speech Legal Framework and the Karnataka Bill

In the absence of a specific hate speech statute, Indian law enforcement agencies utilize a collection of provisions from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the successor to the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

By Rakesh Raman
New Delhi | December 6, 2025

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the current legal landscape concerning hate speech in India, focusing on the proposed Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025. Karnataka is the first state to introduce legislation specifically targeting hate speech, addressing a significant legislative gap in a country where the term is widely used but not formally defined in criminal law.

The proposed Karnataka Bill introduces stricter penalties, including imprisonment from two to ten years, and novel concepts such as “collective liability” for organizations. It also expands the scope of protected categories to include gender and sexual orientation. This initiative contrasts with the current national framework, which relies on a cluster of provisions within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) primarily designed to maintain public order rather than penalize hate speech as a distinct offense. These existing provisions have demonstrated limited efficacy, with a conviction rate for the key predecessor section (IPC 153A) at a mere 20.2% in 2020.

The Supreme Court has taken a proactive but evolving stance, initially directing police to take suo motu action against hate speech but later acknowledging implementation challenges and deferring the monitoring of individual cases to lower courts and police. Previous national-level attempts to create specific hate speech laws, including recommendations from the Law Commission in 2017 and a Private Member’s Bill in 2022, have not been enacted, leaving Karnataka’s bill as a potential new model for regulation.

1. The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025

As the first state in India to introduce a dedicated bill against hate speech, Karnataka aims to fill what its Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister, HK Patil, described as a void where “no existing law deals explicitly with hate speech.” The bill, set to be introduced in the upcoming legislative session, appears to draw on concepts from previous national-level recommendations.

Key Provisions and Features

• Definition of Hate Speech: The bill defines hate speech as any expression that causes injury or disharmony against an individual or group based on protected characteristics.
• Expanded Protected Categories: It notably expands the list of protected categories beyond those traditionally covered in the IPC/BNS to include:
  • Religion
  • Race
  • Caste
  • Gender
  • Sexual Orientation
  • Place of birth
  • Disability
• Penalties: The proposed legislation introduces a wide range of punishment, with imprisonment for offenders ranging from two to ten years.
• Collective Liability: A distinct feature is the introduction of “collective liability.” This provision holds that if hate speech is associated with an organization, individuals in positions of responsibility within that entity can be deemed guilty.
• Regulation of Online Content: The bill empowers the state to block or remove hateful content published on the internet.

2. India’s Existing Legal Framework for Hate Speech

In the absence of a specific hate speech statute, Indian law enforcement agencies utilize a collection of provisions from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the successor to the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These laws are primarily intended to maintain public order.

Relevant Legal Provisions

BNS Section	Predecessor (IPC)	Description	Punishment
Section 196	Section 153A	Penalizes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony.	Up to three years
Section 299	Section 295A	Penalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.	Up to three years
Section 353	Not Specified	Penalizes statements or false information that may induce or incite someone to commit offences against the State or a community, or disturb public order.	Up to three years

• Nature of Offenses: All of the above offenses are cognisable, meaning the police can make an arrest without a warrant.
• Effectiveness: Data from the National Crime Records Bureau indicates that while arrests under these provisions are common, convictions are rare. The conviction rate for Section 153A of the IPC was only 20.2% in 2020.
• Online Speech Regulation: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was frequently used to address online hate speech, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 for being unconstitutionally vague.

3. The Role and Stance of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has adopted a proactive, albeit shifting, position on the issue of hate speech in recent years.

• October 2022 (Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy): Observing that a “climate of hate prevails in the country,” the bench directed the police chiefs of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand to take suo motu action against hate speech cases without waiting for formal complaints. The court warned that any hesitation to act would be treated as contempt. This directive was subsequently extended to all states and union territories in April 2023.
• August 2023 (Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti): While hearing a case, this bench acknowledged that defining hate speech is complex. It stated that the “real problem in tackling it lies in the implementation and execution of law and judicial pronouncements.”
• November 25, 2025 (Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta): A different bench ruled that the Supreme Court was “not inclined to monitor every incident of hate speech.” It affirmed that local police stations and High Courts are competent to handle such cases, referencing the guidelines from the 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment, which mandated the appointment of nodal officers to prevent mob violence.

4. Previous National-Level Legislative Efforts

There have been multiple attempts at the national level to introduce specific legislation criminalizing hate speech, though none have been successful.

Law Commission of India (2017)

• In its 267th Report in March 2017, the Law Commission recommended amending the penal code to specifically address hate speech.
• It proposed the insertion of two new sections:
  • Section 153C: To criminalize incitement to hatred.
  • Section 505A: To criminalize the provocation of violence.

Private Member’s Bill (2022)

• A bill titled “The Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill” was introduced in the Rajya Sabha by Bharat Rashtra Samithi MP KR Suresh Reddy.
• Proposed Definitions:
  • Hate Speech: “any expression that ‘incites, justifies, promotes or spreads discrimination, hatred, hostility, or violence against a person or group.'”
  • Hate Crime: An offense motivated by prejudice against a victim’s real or perceived status, including religion, caste, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
• Proposed Action: The bill sought to omit Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC in favor of these more specific provisions.
• Outcome: The bill was not passed.

By Rakesh Raman, who is a national award-winning journalist and social activist. He is the founder of a humanitarian organization RMN Foundation which is working in diverse areas to help the disadvantaged and distressed people in the society.

Rakesh Raman  |  LinkedIn  |  Facebook  | Twitter (X)