Panel to Define Hate Speech

In News

A panel constituted by the Union Home Ministry to suggest reforms to the British-era Indian Penal Code (IPC) is likely to propose a separate Section on “offences relating to speech and expression”.

About

• The committee is examining a gamut of subjects pertaining to reforms in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
• As there is no clear definition of what constitutes a “hate speech” in the IPC, the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws is attempting for the first time to define such speech.
• Instead of ad hoc changes, it was decided that all the pending issues such as those on hate speech as recommended by the Viswanathan committee can be examined and comprehensive changes are brought in.

Hate Speech

• There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed. 
• The term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.

Recent Attempts to Define Hate Speech in India

• In the 267th Report of the Law Commission of India, hate speech is stated as an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like.
• The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) recently published a manual for investigating agencies on cyber harassment cases that defined hate speech as a “language that denigrates, insults, threatens or targets an individual based on their identity and other traits (such as sexual orientation or disability or religion etc.).
• In 2019, the Ministry decided to overhaul the IPC, framed in 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after seeking suggestions from States, the Supreme Court, High Courts, the Bar Council of India, Bar Councils of States, universities and law institutes on comprehensive amendments to criminal laws. 

Reasons for Hate Speech

• Hate speech occurs to undermine social equality as it reaffirms historical marginalization and oppression.
• It is enacted to cause psychological and physical harm to its victims as it incites violence.
• It is used of provoke individuals or society to commit acts of terrorism, genocides, ethnic cleansing etc.
• It is a tool to create panic through rumour mongering against targeted people. For example, Northeast exodus

Provisions regarding Hate Speech

• Section 153A IPC penalises ‘promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’.  
• Section 153B IPC penalises ‘imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration’.  
• Section 295A IPC penalises ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs’.  
• Section 298 IPC penalises ‘uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person’.  
• Section 505 IPC penalises publication or circulation of any statement, rumour or report causing public mischief and enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.
• Part VII of the Representation of People Act, 1951 classifies hate speech as an offence committed during elections into two categories: corrupt practices and electoral offences. The relevant provisions regarding hate speech in the RPA are Sections 8, 8A, 123(3), 123(3A) and 125. 
• In the realm of the hate speech debate, the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) assumes significance as Item 1 (General Conduct) of the MCC prohibits parties and candidates from making any appeals to caste or communal feelings for securing votes.

Various Committees and their Views

• T.K. Viswanathan Committee 
  • The panel was formed after Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was scrapped by the Supreme Court in 2015 as it provided punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services.
  • It submitted a report recommending stricter laws to curb online hate speech and use of cyberspace to spread hatred and incitement.
  • proposed inserting Sections 153 C (b) and Section 505 A in the IPC for incitement to commit an offence on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe. It proposed punishment by up to two years along with a ?5,000 fine.

• Bezbaruah committee
  • It was constituted by the Centre in February 2014 in the wake of a series of racial attacks on persons belonging to the northeast.
  • It had proposed to insert two stricter anti-racial discrimination provisions in the IPC. 
  • The proposed amendment section 153C IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity) would be punishable by five years and fine or both; 
  • Section 509 A IPC (word, gesture or act intended to insult members of a particular race) would be punishable by three years or fine or both.

Challenges in Tackling Hate Speech

• Difficult to Interpret: The word ‘hate speech’ is a tricky term, merely criticising someone is not hate speech. Legally speaking, for criminal Sections to be invoked, any such speech has to lead to violence or disturbance of law and order. 
• Dissent and criticism: The dissent and criticism of the elected government’s policy, when deceptive or even false, could be ethically wrong, but it should not necessarily invite penal action.
• Protecting Political Speech: The object of criminalising hate speech is to protect dignity and to ensure political and social equality between different identities and groups. However, political speech relating to government policies requires greater protection for preservation and promotion of democracy.
• Keeping Government Out: At the same time, the government should be left out from adjudicating what is true or false, good or bad, valid or invalid as these aspects should be left for open discussion in the public domain.
• Defining intent and purpose: If someone discusses and speaks about controversial and sensitive topics relating to religion, caste, creed, etc. The question is primarily one of intent and purpose which is hard to define. 

Conclusion

• The hate speech is often rooted in, and generates intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive. 
• It is a menace to democratic values, social stability and peace. As a matter of principle, the government must confront hate speech at every turn. 
• At the same time, addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.
• The government should bring comprehensive amendments to criminal laws to prevent hate speech and expression.

Source: TH