Freedom of speech vs. hate speech: legal challenges in India.

Introduction 

In a democracy, people have the liberty to speak and voice their opinions. However, in a diverse country like India, where people from different religions, customs, and cultures are put together, words are considered to be extremely powerful. A single statement or even an act of hate speech can create tension, violence, or even riots. It is, therefore, very important that the line between freedom of speech and hate speech is understood and maintained. “Freedom of speech is often considered essential for democracy. It lets citizens question authority, voice their disagreement, and share ideas that influence the nation’s values. In history, we see many times when people’s rights and freedoms were taken away. Today, we live in a democratic country. The most important foundation of democracy is the rights of its citizens. In a democratic society, these rights protect each person from unfair or excessive interference by the state. One of the most important rights is the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Article 19(1)(a): Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and Article 19(2): Reasonable Restrictions

The freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. It gives every citizen the right to freely express their thoughts and opinions. However, this right is not absolute. However, while this right empowers citizens to express themselves, it must also be balanced with the responsibility to maintain public order and respect the dignity of others. This balance is maintained through reasonable restrictions listed under Article 19(2).

1. Sovereignty and integrity of India
2. Security of the State
3. Friendly relations with foreign States
4. Public order
5. Decency or morality
6. Contempt of court
7. Defamation
8. Incitement to an offence

Yet, in recent years, a major challenge has emerged — distinguishing free speech from hate speech. There are certain restrictions on the right to freedom of speech, but the Constitution does not provide a clear definition of hate speech. Because of this, it becomes difficult to separate freedom of speech from hate speech. It is also challenging to decide what actions should be taken against statements that harm the nation’s interest or disturb public harmony. Therefore, in such cases, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, particularly Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and Section 505 (statements conducing to public mischief), are generally applied to deal with offences related to hate speech

What is Hate speech 

In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace. The Encyclopaedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is “usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation”.

Striking a Balance Between Expression and Respect

A major question that arises is who decides what constitutes hate speech and what counts as a campaign for justice. The difference between the two is often unclear. In the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This section had allowed the arrest of individuals for posting “offensive” content online. The Court held that the law was too vague and broad, and it unfairly restricted the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, it was declared unconstitutional, as it had the potential to suppress legitimate criticism and free expression.

In Amish Devgan v. Union of India, 2020, a journalist made derogatory comments about a religious figure and was charged under Sections 133-9 and 295-A of the IPC. The court ruled that free speech does not cover spreading hatred or hurting religious sentiments.

While the Shreya Singhal case expanded the scope of free speech by striking down a vague and overbroad law, the Amish Devgan case emphasized that this freedom cannot be misused to incite hatred or insult religious sentiments. Together, these judgments highlight the delicate balance between liberty and responsibility in a democratic society.

Debate on Hate speech Critics Vs. Supporters 

Critics argue that:

1. Hate speech laws are often used to silence political dissent.
2. The definition of hate speech is too broad and can easily be misused.
3. People’s personal opinions are sometimes punished unfairly under these laws.

Supporters, on the other hand, argue that:

1. These laws help prevent violence and riots.
2. They protect minorities and vulnerable communities from harm.
3. Without such restrictions, social peace and harmony could collapse.

Role of Media and Social Media

• In the digital era, social media platforms have become a major space for public expression.
• Unfortunately, they are also breeding grounds for misinformation and hate speech.
• The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 aim to make online platforms accountable for harmful content.
• At the same time, excessive censorship by these platforms can threaten free expression.
• Therefore, a balanced regulatory framework is needed — one that prevents harm but protects legitimate speech.

Conclusion

The line between free speech and hate speech is thin but important. Freedom of speech allows citizens to question, debate, and take part in democracy. However, this freedom cannot be absolute; it includes the responsibility to respect the dignity and safety of others. India’s challenge is to create clear legal definitions, balance enforcement, and raise public awareness about responsible expression. In the end, the goal should not be to silence voices. Instead, we should aim to ensure that speech builds up society rather than tears it apart.