The Law Commission of India’s 267th Report defines hate speech cases as an incitement to hatred directed principally towards a group of people who are identified by their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or other characteristics.
Hate speech is defined as any word, whether written or spoken, sign, or visual representation that is presented to a person in a way that is intended to frighten or alarmed them or to encourage them to violence.
Hate Speech Cases
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reports a sharp rise in cases reported to encourage hate speech and xenophobia in society.
Only 323 cases had been reported in 2014; by 2020, there were 1,804 cases.
The year 2020 saw the most cases (1,804), while 2014 (323 cases) saw the fewest in seven years. The state with the most cases under this Section in 2020 was Tamil Nadu (303), which was followed by Uttar Pradesh (243), Telangana (151), Assam (147), and Andhra Pradesh (142).
“Uttering, remarks, etc., with malicious intent to damage the religious sensibilities of any person” is punishable under Section 298 of the IPC. Publication or dissemination of any comment, rumor, or report that incites animosity, hostility, or ill will between classes is punishable under Sections 505(1) and (2) of the IPC.
Is it legal to use hate speech in India? Despite the fact that the Indian Constitution protects the fundamental right to free speech, hate speech is illegal under many parts of the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and other legislation that restricts the right to free speech.
Hate speech aims to further marginalize classes and groups of people who are already in the minority because of their ethnicity, language, or religion. Recent instances of prominent politicians speaking in public were blatant attempts to incite violence, which resulted in widespread violence. Law enforcement agencies have not yet dealt with these situations. Many detractors contend that India’s rules against hate speech are insufficient, although these laws are more than competent to deal with these situations. The absence of execution of these regulations due to factors like political influence is the component missing in not reducing this threat.
An ex-spokesperson for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has received criticism from India’s top court for her divisive remarks against the Prophet Muhammad.
The comments made by Nupur Sharma during a TV debate at the end of May infuriated Indian Muslims and angered Islamic countries.
The Supreme Court accused her of “igniting emotions across the country” on Friday, claiming that “her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire.”
The Preamble aims to safeguard everyone – The preamble of our constitution includes language like “secularism,” “republic,” “socialism,” “sovereign,” “democratic,” “justice,” “freedom of expression,” and “should not be exceeded,” “should not be under hate speech,” and “speech should not insult others’ feelings or dignity.” The Preamble guarantees both fraternity and brotherhood.
You’re probably wondering why I’m mentioning the Preamble’s context at this point.
Because it is necessary to reiterate,
the whole case:
A Hindu priest from the Ghaziabad temple named Baba Yati Narsinghanand gave a hate speech to the audience in the Hindu holy city of Haridwar. He also attacked the dignity of other religions, prompting Fir to attack him.
IPC
Waseem Rizvi, formerly Jitendra Singh Tyagi, was the first person detained in connection with a hate speech case in Haridwar at Dharma Sansad.
also a religious gathering.
The conference’s theme was “The Future of the Sanatan (Dharma) in Islamic India,” or Islamic Bharat Mein Sanatan ka Bhavishya. Additionally, Madhavi Annapurna made derogatory remarks against the Muslim community.
It was heartbreaking to learn that Yati Narsinghanand had cursed a police officer and his child. There, Yati’s participation in the statement was approved by him personally.
Even the event’s organizers don’t regret it, and they continue to say that they approved of the statement and aren’t afraid of the police.
Criticism
The entirety of this case received harsh criticism from social media that also gained popularity on social media.
In a letter to the prime minister, 183 students and lecturers from the Indian Institutes of Management in Bangalore and Ahmedabad urged him to take action. 76 eminent attorneys and judges wrote to the Chief Justice of India pleading for a suo moto notice and immediate judicial intervention. They stated that the Chief Justice’s silence “emboldens the hate-filled voices and threatens the unity and integrity of our country.”
Taking action against:
Police took action against those who used hate speech, but there needs to be no room for impunity. Additionally, India needs to uphold its reputation as a secular nation that treats all religions equally. India is a country where brotherhood and fraternity are deeply ingrained, and There was a strong sense of unity. All cultures are valued equally, and such unity and integrity cannot be compromised by such statements.
Suggested Reads; Shashi Tharoor The Congress Party Leader
Get daily updates and trendy news to enhance your knowledge with every topic covered. Including fashion, technology, current affairs, travel news, health-related news, sports news, Business, Political News, and many more.
For more information visit Live News Dekho