FREEDOM OF SPEECH V. HATE SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA: LEGAL BOUNDARIES
Understanding India’s Updated Criminal Framework for Digital Expression
Social media today is more than a platform—it’s our protest stage, opinion podium, and often, our first source of news. It empowers every individual to speak up. But with that power comes responsibility. In the age of viral tweets and WhatsApp forwards, the line between freedom of speech and hate speech is often blurred.
In a diverse democracy like India, this balance is crucial. The law must protect expression while preventing speech that can provoke harm. With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, India’s criminal law has evolved to meet these new-age digital challenges. Let’s explore how these changes define the legal limits of speech online.
Constitutional Foundation
India’s Article 19(1)(a) guarantees all citizens the freedom of speech and expression. This includes the right to express personal opinions, political criticism, religious beliefs, and even satire. It is a core pillar of our democracy, ensuring that dissent and dialogue thrive.
However, this right is not absolute. Under Article 19(2), the State can impose “reasonable restrictions” in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, public order, decency, morality, national security, contempt of court, defamation, or to prevent incitement to an offence. These restrictions are essential in a society where unregulated speech can provoke violence, spread hatred, or destabilise public peace.
What Is Hate Speech?
Although Indian law does not explicitly define “hate speech,” the Supreme Court has stepped in through judicial interpretations. Hate speech generally refers to any expression—whether spoken, written, or visual—that attacks, demeans, or incites violence against a group based on attributes such as religion, caste, ethnicity, language, gender, or sexual orientation.
In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court described hate speech as an effort to marginalise individuals based on their group identity. The Court stressed that such speech, particularly in a multicultural society like India, is dangerous and must be actively regulated.
Judicial Milestones
The Supreme Court has delivered several landmark rulings shaping the legal stance on online speech:
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalised “offensive” online messages. The Court held that vague terms cannot be the basis for criminal action and clarified that only speech inciting violence or public disorder can be lawfully restricted. This judgment reaffirmed the protection of unpopular opinions, satire, and criticism—unless they provoke real harm.
In Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), the Court expressed serious concern over lynchings driven by fake news and hate speech. It directed both Central and State governments to monitor social media and take preventive steps to curb violence. This case highlighted the shift from merely punishing hate to actively preventing it.
In Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020), the Court emphasised that public figures and influencers bear greater responsibility for their speech. Devgan’s derogatory remarks against a revered Sufi saint sparked outrage. The Court ruled that while free speech protects criticism, it does not cover deliberate religious insults or community attacks.
New Legal Standards: BNS 2023
With the enforcement of the BNS, 2023, the government has replaced the outdated Indian Penal Code with more focused and modern laws.
Three key provisions now deal directly with hate speech:
Section 123 punishes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, caste, or place of birth. Whether through words, gestures, or digital content, if it incites hatred or creates division, it is a punishable offence.
Section 125 addresses deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. If someone knowingly insults or provokes religious sentiments, especially with intent to offend, they can be held criminally liable.
Section 127 targets the publication or circulation of false or provocative information that causes fear, panic, or hatred among communities. This is especially important in the digital age, where misinformation spreads rapidly.
Together, these provisions give a clear legal structure to counter hate speech—especially on social platforms.
Digital Regulation: IT Act and Beyond
In addition to criminal prosecution under BNS, digital platforms are also governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021.
Under these rules:
Social media platforms are recognised as intermediaries and must take down unlawful content within 36 hours of being notified.
Platforms must appoint compliance officers, grievance redressal teams, and provide traceability of the origin of messages when legally required.
Failure to comply removes their legal immunity and exposes them to criminal proceedings for user-generated content.
A new law, the Digital India Act, is under consideration. It aims to further regulate harmful online practices, tackle deep fakes, increase platform accountability, and ensure transparency in content moderation.
Where Responsibility Lies
Many users unknowingly share harmful or hateful content. But under Indian law, sharing or forwarding such content can also attract criminal charges—especially if it contributes to spreading enmity or fear.
Criticising a policy is your right. Targeting a community is a crime. Public dialogue is encouraged, but hate cannot hide behind the mask of “free speech.”
What the Future Holds
Courts and lawmakers are now working on:
Faster response to online hate
Better coordination between law enforcement and tech platforms
Stricter accountability for influencers and content creators
Tech-driven tools to trace and remove hate content before it spreads
These steps indicate a clear legal shift from reaction to prevention, with a focus on protecting individuals and maintaining public harmony.
Conclusion
Freedom of speech is a pillar of Indian democracy, but it cannot become a weapon of harm. The BNS, 2023, along with evolving IT laws, reinforces that words have consequences—especially in public and digital spaces.
Use your platform to inform, to debate, and to uplift—not to incite or divide. Because in today’s India, what we say online doesn’t just reflect who we are—it shapes the kind of nation we are building.
Closing Credit
Author- Pooja Agrawal
"The views expressed are personal. This article is intended for educational purposes and public discourse. Feedback and constructive criticism are welcome!"
Comments
Post a Comment