Hate speech: A threat to democratic values
Introduction
The Constitution of India recognises that liberty can’t be absolute and hence added provisions in Article 19(2) – 19(6), equipping authority to the state to limit the use of freedom guaranteed under the article, within the restrictions bestowed in its clauses. It is an unquestionable kind of backdrop of Article 19 containing limits solely rather than defining the term “hate speech”.
The two basic amendments in clause 2 of the Indian Constitution (1951 and 1963) respectively authorised the Indian Legislature to impose suitable restrictions on the exercise of this right if it is for certain reasons like- “For security reasons; For the sovereignty and integrity of the state; For the purpose of maintaining cordial relations with foreign states; For maintaining public order in the state; For maintaining decency and morality of the state; For court’s contempt; For defaming purposes; For inciting of an offence”
Definition
There is a great need to draw a fine line and balance hate speech and free speech in India. Hate speech has been defined by the Indian Law Commission in its 267th report as “any word written or spoken, signs, gestures or representations which can be visualised within the hearing or sight of an individual with the intention to create a sense of fright or alarm, or persuasion to violence”.
Hate speech and our democratic values
We are surrounded by hatred and unfairness and there is a very different kind of atmosphere we are breathing. People, rather than talking about the causes of it are inclined towards simply opinionating about how it is, not why it is. Hate speech in general is regarded as a menace to one’s democratic values, social stability, and harmony and the reason behind it is that it leads to division.
India is already facing countless matters to be solved out and above that, cheers to one more which has been termed as hate speech. People are not ready to use their intellect but are only carving out more hurdles for themselves and their future generations by supporting such grounds of discrimination and division. It is like following a beast unquestioningly.
A bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while hearing a plea to initiate unlawful chronicles against the Union Minister Anurag Thakur for hate speech, said that “If you are saying something with a smile, then there is no criminality if you are saying something offensive, then definitely”.
Legal provisions for curbing hate speech
Hate speech has not been defined or explained under any Indian or International law but there are certain provisions under Indian laws on grounds of which, an FIR can be lodged against an individual.
Provisions of hate speech under the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 124A of IPC provides that a person must be punished or fined if he tries to spread hatred or enmity towards the Government of India either expressly or impliedly.
Section 153A of IPC provides that a person must be punished or fined if he tries to spread enmity or hatred in the society on grounds of caste, religion, community, place of birth, etc., or intends to promote disharmony among various religious groups either expressly or impliedly.
Section 153B of IPC provides that a person must be punished or fined for imputations and assertions made against the national integrity of India either expressly or impliedly.
Section 295A of IPC provides that a person must be punished or fined for knowingly and with mala fide intention, outraging the religious sentiments of various classes of Indian citizens by insulting their religion or community either expressly or impliedly.
Section 298 of IPC provides that a person must be punished or fined for intentionally hurting the religious sentiments of a person either expressly or impliedly.
Section 505(1) of IPC provides that a person must be punished or fined for maliciously intending to instigate an individual or a group to commit an offence against the state or any public tranquillity.
Provisions of hate speech under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 95 of CrPC provides that any document which is punishable under certain provisions of IPC must be seized by the state government or the police must investigate or seize the document or copy of it in premises where it is suspected to be found on orders of the magistrate.
Section 144 of CrPC provides that the magistrate has the authority to issue orders in cases of nuisance or danger where speedy remedy or immediate prevention is required.
Provisions of hate speech under the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Section 8 of this act provides that candidates convicted for certain punishable offences like promoting hatred or enmity on religious grounds must be disqualified and remain disqualified for a particular duration.
Section 123 (3A) of this act provides that a candidate must be punished for intentionally hurting the religious sentiments of a religious group or community on the grounds of religion, caste, creed, etc. for the purpose of gaining a certain position in the elections.
Section 125 of this act provides that a candidate must be punished with an imprisonment of maximum 3 years or must be fined for promoting enmity or hatred on religious grounds.
Provisions of hate speech under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
Section 7 of this act provides that a person must be punished or fined for insulting or discriminating an individual on grounds of untouchability or obstructing any such member to perform his rights on such grounds or promoting any of its forms.
Provisions of hate speech under the Cinematograph Act, 1952
Section 4 of this act provides that a certificate of the exhibition must be provided by the respective board to an individual after successfully examining a film.
Section 5B of this act provides that a film must not get certificate of exhibition if it infringes any provision under clause 2 of Article 19.
Section 7 of this act provides that any class of persons which is restricted under the certificate granted for its exhibition must be considered an offence and is punishable if that class or group of persons tend to involve in the display of the exhibition.
Provisions of hate speech under the Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995
Section 5 of this act provides that any kind of program must not be transmitted through any kind of cable network if it does not fulfill the requirements provided by the code.
Section 6 of this act provides that any kind of advertisement must not be transmitted through any kind of cable network if it does not fulfill the requirements provided by the code.
Provisions of hate speech under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988
Section 3(g) of this act provides that the premises of any religious institution must not be used for promoting any political activity, storing any kind of arms and ammunition, carrying any activity infringing the peace, harmony, unity, or integrity of India.
Recent controversies
The recent controversy on the matter of hate speech hadn’t actually begun with the comment of ex-spokesperson, Nupur Sharma, instead it began with the matter of the Gyanvapi Mosque. On the basis of a petition in the month of April 2022, the Hon’ble Court of Varanasi ordered a videographic survey in the Kashi Vishwanath Temple and the Gyanvapi Mosque complexes.
After the survey got completed, an object was discovered in the mosque over which some people claimed that this object was a Shivling. On the other hand, some people claimed that it is a fountain. There was no such investigation into it to find out what it actually is. But it became a matter of extensive discussion on social media platforms.
People claiming the object to be a Shivling were mocked by others, saying that by using that logic, anything around can be assumed as a Shivling. People across social media uploaded plenty of photographs of road barriers saying that they too can be Shivling by using that logic. These events hurt the sentiments of some people and they argued that not only them but instead their religion was being mocked.
Although, if one tries to intellectually analyse this scenario, we will get to observe that such jokes were targeted towards those who desired to look for a Shivling in every object and not actually towards Shivling or Lord Shiva. During all these events, an Associate Professor of History at Delhi University named Ratan Lal made an objectionable social media post.
He took the joke a level further and hence not only an FIR was lodged against him on grounds of Section 135A and Section 295A, but he was also arrested. The Professor defended himself by stating that “no matter what you say in India, there is nothing new that you will be hurting someone’s sentiments”.
People across the nation supported him on the grounds that under Article 19, a person has been awarded free speech. But on the other hand, some people argued that though there is freedom of speech under Article 19 but it is not absolute and is subjected to certain reasonable prohibitions under clause 2 of the same. It nowhere signifies that one can hurt the religious sentiments of others and term it as freedom of speech.
This is the cause for Section 295A coming into action, but as per the Supreme Court of India, there are certain conditions provisioned under this section. Supreme Court held that the words being used by such persons should be judged from the standards set by reasonable, strong-minded, firm, and courageous people and not from the perspective of weak-willed people who are always ready to take personal offence in every matter.
Dr. Ratan Lal was put on a trial in the court, if he is found to be guilty, he will be convicted and punished for the same and if the charges do not hold, he will be acquitted.
In the midst of all these events, here enters the Ex-spokesperson of BJP, Nupur Sharma who on 26 May, attended a debate on a news channel named NEWS 24 and passed some controversial remarks on Islam and Prophet Mohammad, quoting Quran and Hadith that “your flying horses and the earth is flat written in Quran, shall I mock them? Shall I mock Prophet Mohammad ho married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she turned 9? Fly away with those flying horses.
The Shivling you are calling a fountain was found was 2.5 km away from the mosque”. She was prevented from passing more such remarks which were highly offensive, so she left the debate in between just out of annoyance. Later on the same day, at 7pm, she attended another news channel debate named REPUBLIC BHARAT and passed exactly the same comments. There too she was warned for not making any personal comments or hurting one’s religious sentiments.
On the same day, she again for the third time she attended a debate on TIMES NOW channel and passed her offensive comments in the same regard. The thing to be noted here is that this was not a mere slip of the tongue as she meant to say something else and spoke something else out of some mistake, nor she was so indignant that she couldn’t control herself.
Instead, all these statements were made deliberately as she made the same remarks thrice, and that too at contrasting places. These comments made by her were nothing else but as per her own assertions, because, she was sensitive to some people making fun of the Shivling in her judgement and impairing her religious sentiments. This is obvious from her assertion “shall I mock you?” which she gave at times during the discussion.
The decision for this matter of controversy that whether she violated 295A or not, relies upon the courts but the action which was taken against Mr. Ratan Lal, no such action taken could be spotted during this controversy.
BJP Delhi Media head, Naveen Kumar Jindal also made several tweets against Islam and disrespected Prophet Mohammad, who was also condemned by the population later on.
Consequences
There were many incidents of stone pelting, vandalism, and violence after this controversy. As a result of this controversy, Nupur Sharma and Naveen Kumar Jindal were expelled from the party. Mr. Jindal deleted his tweet with a simple apology and Nupur Sharma gave an unconditional apology for the same.
The statements and comments of both Nupur Sharma and Naveen Kumar Jindal went this viral on social media that 16 nations (Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Malaysia, UAE, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, Maldives, Libya, Turkey, and Indonesia) gave statements against India and demanded an apology from the Indian government.
Qatar, Iran and Kuwait summoned Indian ambassadors to protest and condemn these remarks. In some places, there were slogans of “Boycott Indian Products”.
At a supermarket in Kuwait, some shelves of rice and spices were wrapped up in plastic sheets, and on it, it was written in Arabic that “we have removed Indian Products”. This is a matter of great concern that oil imports, the market for Indian exports, employment, foreign reserves, etc. are majorly influenced by the Gulf countries.
Finally, on 8th of June, 2022, Delhi Police registered two FIRs, one which was against Nupur under Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, and the other one was against 31 people which also included people like Asaduddin Owaisi, Dasna Devi, Nand Yati Narsinghananda, Saba Naqvi, who have allegedly hurt the religious sentiments of numerous individuals across the globe and spread hate.
Role of media
There are several people other than Nupur Sharma, who appear on television screens for decades, making plenty of such remarks and no action is taken against them. One such eminent personality is Ilyas Sharafuddin who is often seen in debates and discussions on news channels. In a debate held by ZEE NEWS, he openly mocked Hindus that they idol worship, worship the Shivling and compared it to male private organ.
He was not prevented by anyone to make such offensive remarks for the same. People demanded action against him as he clearly hurt religious sentiments and mocked them. Earlier, Islamist Saba Naqvi mocked Shivlinga, contrasting it to construction at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.
Later, she deleted her tweet claiming that it was a WhatsApp forward. But the question here arises is that do these news channels knowingly place a Maulvi on one side and a Hindu on the other where they both insult and mock each other so that inflammatory speeches can be made from both sides and controversies keep on arising so that people stay deviated towards such insignificant matters?
Hate speech: A national problem
If a country so diversified, especially India desires to curb such a problem, the media needs to serve a significant role. We are living in an era of information and revolution so there must not be any sort of hateful content being posted on social media.
If any sort of content like a community posting something offensive against another community like LGBTQ, one race posting content offensive against the other, one religious group promoting offensive content towards the other, etc., it must immediately be deleted from platforms or must be ceased from spreading further. These are the major causes of communal disharmony.
Another solution could be at a macro level which is education, as it is the most powerful weapon to empower minds. A very famous quote of Dr. Ambedkar is “cultivation of mind should be the ultimate aim of human existence”.
Hate speech: An international problem
There is no national and even international definition of hate speech accepted legally and the characterisation of what is “hateful” is still matter of controversy and dispute. If we look at the scenario, hate speech is not only a problem limited to the Indian context but also other nations across the globe. Talking about hate crimes, religion has been identified as the major factor of causation.
Antonio Manuel de Oliveira Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations stated that “hate speech is in itself an attack on forbearance, incorporation, diversity and the very quintessence of our human rights, norms, and principles”.
Efforts to curb hate speech internationally
- The Council of Europe made certain efforts in 2013 by sponsoring “no hate speech” movement actively, raising awareness about it, in order to help combat the problem.
- On May 31, 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, jointly agreed to a European Union Code of conduct which obligated them to review “the majority of valid notifications for eradicating illegal hate speech” posted on their respective services within 24 hours.
- Several countries’ governments are coming up with certain social media norms to tackle this problem from the side of social media at least.
- Further, UN has also talked about its “strategy and plan of action on hate speech” where the key commitments have been discussed under the heads like- “The trends must be analysed and collected which are related to hate speech; A common criteria must be adopted to know about the root causes of hate speech; The victims of hate speech must be counselled, supported and their rights must be upheld by adopting certain human rights centred policies; Values like tolerance, gender equality, respect towards human rights, and non-discrimination must be inculcated with the help of traditional media; Technological advancements must be used to spread awareness about the factors causing violence due to hatred caused by one’s expression of speech; Education must be promoted to obtain higher literacy rates, so that hate speech could be countered; A line must be drawn between what amounts to hate speech and what is freedom of expression so that the basic right could not get restricted; Various government and private ownerships must be collaborated with to increase the reach of awareness among the individuals or groups”
Suggestions
As per the researcher’s opinion, the foundation of eradicating hate speech can only be laid by fore mostly adding provisions for hate speech in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. It must be defined so that a proper differentiation ground can be laid down for free speech and hate speech.
Secondly, the authorities must abide by the law and decide such sensitive matters on equal grounds. There must be no distinction as in this case, between a leading authority and a common man. The procedure must be equally applicable to all.
The judiciary must take strict actions against the ones who issue such offensive remarks, the police officers who disregard law and order by killing people in custody, and also the ones who indecisively spread violence, give death threats, rape threats, involve themselves in stone pelting or killing innocent beings rather than following instant justice models blindly.
Conclusion
Bhagwat Geeta says that anger leads to illusion, illusion causes the brain to go chaotic, when the mind is not still, then all rationale goes for a toss, and when rationality is set aside, the human dies. This famous quote of the Bhagwat Gita not only signifies the severe consequences of hatred but also relates to the Indian scenario nowadays.
The only point to keep in mind is that we spread awareness among our relatives, kids, parents, colleagues, etc. about how indecisive and illogical a person becomes when he speaks or does something in anger or hatred or just out of jealousy. But none of us applies it to ourselves when such sensitive yet insignificant issues or controversies come up.
The Indian laws have been beautifully designed but when we apply them in a practical sense, why do their provisions fail to serve justice to the population? it is not only the fault of the authorities being irresponsible in this context or being corrupt or lacking to analyse and decide but also the population who spoon-fed them by blindly and irrationally agreeing and following their perspectives.
It is high time for us to take a step forward and first do our respective jobs of choosing our leaders rationally and talking about the issues which are actually significant rather than deviating ourselves towards such insignificant matters which add up to one more basis of discrimination. We can only talk about changing the entire system when we bring a change ourselves at the grass root level.
This article has been authored by Astha Thapliyal, a student at Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun.
Attention all law students!
Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?
Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the biggest legal community around!
Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.