Page |1

Dr.RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

POLITICAL SCIENCE

HATE SPEECH: MISUSE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

Submitted to Submitted by

Dr. Monika Srivastav Aniket Sachan

Assistant Professor,(pol sc.) Roll no – 28

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Enrollment id-170101028

National Law University B.A. LLB(HONS),IIIrd semester

SECTION-“A”
 Page |2

Table of contents

 Introduction……………………………………………………3

 The concept of Hate Speech…………………………….4-5

 The Constitutional Provision……………...……………..5-6

 Contemporary Issues of Hate Speech in India……6-10

 Conclusion…………………………………….…………10-12
 Page |3

Introduction
The Present project 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 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.

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.

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.1

1
https://book.coe.int/ftp/3342.pdf
 Page |4

The Concept of Hate Speech

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 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.”2

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.

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.

2
The Canadian Supreme Court in R.V. Keegstra (1990) 3 S.C.R. 697.
 Page |6

Contemporary Issues of Hate Speech in India

1. Ayodhya riots

In the valance of Ayodhya 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 Ayodhya 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 Ayodhya 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 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
 Page |7

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.

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.

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.

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
 Page |9

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.3

The notion that any city or part of India belongs only to its ‘natives’ is unconstitutional,

repugnant and injurious to the ideal of national unity and integration. From time

immemorial, our people have freely moved from one part of the country to another,

believing all of India to be their own. As far as Mumbai is concerned, although it

is the capital of Maharashtra, people from every corner of the country have migrated

to this city of dreams and opportunities since its inception. Mumbai is what it is

today because of the contribution of diverse communities inhabiting it.

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.

4. AKBARUDDIN OWAISI HATE SPEECH

Owaisi made the statement that "the population of your Hindustan (India) is 1 billion, while we

Muslims are 20 million." He added that Muslims of India would need only 15 minutes without

the police to show the Hindus of India who is more powerful - the Hindustan of 1 billion or the

3
http://www.ndtv.com/topic/thackeray-hate-speech
 P a g e | 10

25 million Muslims". The crowd responded to this statement by shouting slogans of "Allahu

Akbar" and the leaders present at the meeting supported Owaisi. Owaisi called the Hindus as

"impotent" and the Indian police as the "impotent army". He said that not even one crore

impotent men can together father one child. He said that these people (Hindus) cannot face the

Muslims, and whenever the Muslims start dominating the Hindus, the impotent army (police)

intervenes.

Conclusion

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

sunijaatihai.-Wassembrelvi.4

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.

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
 P a g e | 11

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.

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
 P a g e | 12

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.

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-fa-

idINDEE87K09Z20120821

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

communal-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-hindu-

communal-hate-speech-nirmal-adilabad

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

10. Books on :Constitution of India-