Divisive electoral rhetoric is hate speech too: Law panel

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 25

Highlighting the dangers of hate speech, the Law Commission has recommended to the government to take measures to expand and fortify the penal provisions to deal with the menace that often leads to communal violence in India.

Incitement to violence cannot be the sole criterion for determining hate speech and attempts to create hatred and fear should also be brought under its ambit, the commission said in its 267th report submitted to the government.

(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)

The Commission — which was asked by the Supreme Court to examine the issue — suggested adding new provisions to the Indian Penal Code, saying even a speech that did not incite violence had the potential of marginalising a section of the society.

“Hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence,” it said.

The Commission sought to highlight that “political speeches often assume a divisive tone in order to exploit social prejudices for electoral gains.” However, it said the discourse must take place in an environment that does not foster abusive or hateful sentiments. 

“Though political rivalry might encourage the use of unwarranted language, it is unwise to restrict speech that merely showcases the tendency to evoke unwanted circumstances without intention. In order to promote robust and healthy debate, it is important that a fine balance is struck between freedom and restrictions,” it said.

The Commission, headed by Justice BS Chauhan, drafted a new law — The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2017 — inserting new Sections to the IPC on ‘prohibiting incitement to hatred’ and ‘causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases’. However, it said any legal regulation of hate speech must strike a balance between harm caused by hate speech and the threat to freedom of speech and expression.

The panel — which advises the government on legal issues — also suggested certain “non-legal measures to address hate speech”.

It advocated subtly and effectively promoting harmony between communities through popular TV dramas; involvement of religious heads to build empathy across religious lines; and strategic interventions to monitor dissemination of hate speech and mob mobilisation by misuse of social media.

In the age of technology and social media, the anonymity of Internet allowed miscreants to easily spread false and offensive ideas, it noted.