ABSTRACT
This research will discuss the legal study about freedom of speech against hate speech. the constitution provides some fundamental rights to Indian citizen. To maintain the dignity among state and citizen. The provision under Article 19 in Indian constitution provides some basic fundamental rights in which Article 19 sub clause (a) discusses freedom of speech and expression. Article 19 does not allow hate speech but freedom to speak on valid facts. We are going to discuss such provision of speech and hate speech. how it is working in India. Or is it restricting citizen from enjoying their rights.
Keywords: hate speech, freedom of speech, constitution, sedition law, contempt of court, Article 19, fundamental Rights.
INTRODUCTION
The Indian constitution provide some basic fundamental rights to India citizen. Under part 3 of constitution (Fundamental Rights) these provisions are discussed.
Article 19 provides guarantees the rights as: –
a) Right to speech and expression
b) Right to assembly peacefully and without arms
c) Right to form association
d) Right to move freely
e) Right to reside
f) Right to Practice Profession
The Article 19(a) speaks about freedom of speech and expression these provide right to speak or express our opinions, knowledge, ideas or perspective without interference of state on government. Views can express by written or oral from as in written by news article, picture, magazine or any other written form or in oral form such as speech, advertisement, online videos. These right helps citizen to know what exactly going in state through social media or television. To know about government activities. Also provide right against bundh called by political party or organisation. But state can impose some restriction on freedom of speech on basis of sovereignty and integrity, for security purpose and maintain peace in country.
Hate speech term having different meaning with different perspective. hate speech is public speech that is against any race, caste, community, morals, sex, religion which can create outrage or violence result to disturb the countries peace. Given by officer, influencer, politician or any other persons in country.
Constitution certificates every one of its natives the privilege of Expression and Speech. It’s likewise considered as one of the basic Human Rights under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Hate speeches by media is also considered or any other individual in country in held liable if found in hate speech
Taking the above mention point into consideration this research in done on the basis on latest scenarios.
RESEARCH METHDOLOGY
CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH Involves research of thoughts and ideas and developing new interpretation.
DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH concentrates on finding facts to ascertain the nature of something as it exist
REVIEW OF LITRETURE
Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in human rights documents. England’s Bill of Rights approved ‘freedom of speech in Parliament ‘and is still in effect. Today freedom of speech or the freedom of expression is considered in international and regional human right law. The free expression of ideas and opinion is the right of man. Every citizen may free access his right anywhere in country.
They have different aspect as: –
1. The right seeks information and ideas
2. The right to receive information and ideas
3. The right to impart information and ideas
Hate speech can violate such law as it crosses some reasonable restriction as defamation, contempt of court, sedition law also cause disturbance in state. Words made a significant impact on society so as hate speech Typical hate speech involves unethical word, statements that promote desirable harm, and speech intended to hatred or violence against any community or any person. Hate speech can also include nonverbal depictions and symbols which lowers someone’s dignity.
Lots of speeches in country against another country can leads to armed rebellion between countries. causing contempt of court by publishing any article or any news which lowers the authority of any court is considered as against freedom of speech. Sedition law as statement made against government will affect the dignity of state so it’s important to maintain the balance between freedom of speech and hate speech.
Some incident of hate speech: –
● JNU student leader Umar Khalid was spoken on Times Now where the news reporter described him as threat to this country than terrorists in 2016
● the SC asked an explanation from the UP government where CM Yogi Adinath delivered hate speech The appeal was made after the hate speech January 2007.
Some incident of freedom of speech: –
MENAKA GANDHI VS UNION OF INDIA
The SC provide decision the freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thought with others not only in India but abroad also.
SHREYA SINGLA CASE
provision that actually restricted freedom related to speech and expression. The case take place in Kashmir related to free to express on internet.
METHOD
Constitution provide freedom to express our thought but it does not provide to deliver any hate speech as it has some reasonable restriction. Speech is our personal right but hate speech is not our right as it violates another person’s rights and cause disturbance. promotes hatred, violence, or discrimination
Freedom of speech is a right that is given to citizen to share their opinions and ideas without inclusion of state government. It is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and is considered a cornerstone of democracy, but hate speech is defined as speech that attacks violence or discrimination against a particular group based on characteristics such as race, religion, caste community or obscenity.
Hate speech provoked people to act wrongful against state as terrorism, making statement against government violation sedition law, such as delivering statement about working of government, criticising government policy in negative approach. Also making publication of judgements of any case of SC without permission of court or negative comment on the decision of court which lowers its authority of court will be considered as contempt of court then the consequences have to face. In case of defamation, it is civil wrong or tort occurs when false statement is made about any person harming their reputation in eyes of society.
Hate speech has become sort of a controversial concept of today with many advocates of its regulation on one side, and many opponents on the other. Controversy of this kind is increase by the fact that by limiting and regulating hate speech, we destroy the freedom of expression and make it valueless. Despite the fact that it can by no means be considered a new scenario, there is yet no universal definition of hate speech
Hate speech is not considered as freedom of speech these rights provide chance express true facts whether a negative fact but we can express it but should not cause disturbance.
Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian impose certain restrictions on free speech:
I. security of the State,
II. friendly relations with foreign States,
III. public order,
IV. decency and morality,
V. contempt of court,
VI. defamation,
VII. incitement to an offence, and
VIII. sovereignty and integrity of India.
Reasonable restriction can be set on the basis of this ground
I. SECURITY OF STATE
Any hate speech or any expression any individual leading to arms rebellion or terrorism or causing any threat to state. Hated speech communication against any other country can lead to war or disturbance of peace, waging of war and rebellion against the government, external aggression or war.
II. FRIENDLY RELATION WITH FOREING STATE
To maintain the good relation with others it is important to maintain good relation with them to avoid wars and disturbance both internal and external
III. PUBLIC ORDER
Government has to restrict such speeches which can cause thread to the country to maintain the public order. Hate speech leads to violence disturbance threat to peace of the country so it’s an important point article 19 to restrict the freedom of speech.
Case based on public order
1. RANJIT D. UDESHU VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ON 19 AUGUST, 1964
IV. DECENCY AND MORALITY
Some restrictions are based on decency morality of the society if some speech is harming the decency and morality of any societal harm that features restricted on the article 19(b) to maintain the public moral and ethics in case of such speeches. Such species have to restrict to maintain the societal norms.
Landmark case on decency and morality
Recent case of 2025
1. RANVIR ALLABADIA CASE 2025
The famous social media influencer annual Allahabad have a commented obscene statement in show which made him go through the controversy of the public disturbance the supreme court have given the judgements against him about no sudden imprisonment, his passport was seized the controversial statement he made in the show had started this controversy. People have right of freedom of speech as per the article 19 of constitution but which statement is against the societal norms in the limitation number 4 of decency and morality on this ground, he has to face controversy in the society as that statement is not decent or morally right in the public moral and ethics. As per the ground he has committed the civil wrong and the crime
V. CONTEMPT OF COURT
Some individual making negative statement against any person which defaming him which harm his reputation and cause effect on his character. By making such statement individual can loss his original identity, the false statement against him was made and circulate by the people are doing defamation against that person which is a civil wrong under law defamation can be written print oral for example in newspaper or transit forms of expression there are some statements they must be defamatory refer to the plaintiff and must be a false statement, not a positive criticism. Some defence for the defamation has given as justification must be a fair comment, absolute privilege, qualified privilege, or given with the consent.
Landmark case of contempt of court
1. PRASHANT BHUSHAN VS UNION OF INDIA 2020
In this case Prashan Bhushan, a famous politician has to tweet statement against CJ of a commission which leads to contempt of court, as he lowers the authority and commented negative statement against court commission the court decided this as a contempt of court against Prashant Bhushan
VI. DEFAMATION
Some individual making negative statement against any person which defaming him which Harm his reputation and cause effect on his character. By making such statement individual can loss his original identity the false statement against him was made and circulate by the people are doing defamation against that person which is a civil wrong under low defamation can be written print oral for example in newspaper or transit forms of expression there are some statements they must be defamatory refer to the plaintiff and must be a false statement not a positive criticism. Some defence for the defamation has given as justification must be a fair comment, absolute privilege, qualified privilege, or given with the consent.
Landmark case of defamation
1. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS UNION OF INDIA
Under this case the balance between freedom of speech and defamation that is lowering the repetition of any person as their speech. Which is the right of freedom of speech and expression under article 19e of the Indian constitution
VII. INCITEMENT OF AN OFFENCE
Under incitement of an offence any person making such statement or comment which provoke another person to commit a crime a prohibited under this article such speech is restricted so that a person does not give provoke and commit crime Sach provocative statement incitement to an offence are not the part of freedom of speech on expression.
Landmark case of incitement of offence
1. KEDARNATH SINGH VS STATE OF BIHAR
In this case is related to incitement of an offence and its ground of restriction on freedom of speech in India it gives the validity to sedition law in IPC section 124a give the calculator tendency about the direct violence
VIII. SOVEREIGNTY INTEGRITY OF INDIA
Any statement made against the state which affects its sovereignty and integrity. Statement made against the State or State Government which can cause hatred and violence in the state such statements are restricted under article 19 clause 2 in reasonable restriction on this ground of sovereignty and integrity of India such hatred statement can cause terrorism, violence and public provocation in the state which disturb the internal peace of a country.
Landmark case on sovereignty and integrity of India
1. STATE OF MADRAS, 1950 CASE
It was landmark case based on limitation of freedom of speech given rise to limited speech over sovereignty of India, the speech should not harm the integrity of state, it plays pivotal role to mark the ground as a limitation of freedom of speech and expression.
On the above grounds mentioned in the article 19 sub class 2 sec period of the state when relation with foreign state decency and morality contempt of court defamation incitement of an offence sovereignty integrity of India have restricted grounds for freedom of speech and expression if someone tries to made a speech or hate speech on basis of this ground is liable for the civil wrong hate speech say something which cause a violence disturbance between the people and the country
Recent scenario over online platforms: –
As Ranvir allahbadia over his comment in popular show India’s got latent which mention as obscene hate speech causes outrage in public leads to filling FIR against him and close down of show. Here SC call over freedom of speech but not in obscene manner.
Also, in online platforms as social media and sites are also responsible for limiting the right of freedom of speech. Fake news related to politics or offensive message which are texted by corrupt users are shared and forwarded blindly. both the media and politicians are conveying hate speeches on controversial matters leads political outrage of group of people in state. The public believes on social media for the information and instead of working neutral the media can be seen favouring personal views of politicians.
The media is the fourth pillar of the country which is very fast networking site which connect the people in very section of minutes and seconds that’s why any news which is fake false any statement made against in individual anything gets viral so fast with the help of the social media so the hate speech generated towards people so fast which is quite harming for the society the balance between the freedom of speech and hate speech should be maintain.
BALANCE BETWEEN FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND HATE SPEECH
In order to maintain the peace in a country balance between the freedom of speech and hate speech should be maintain freedom of speech comes with some reasonable restrictions people are not allowed to do the hate speeches as it comes with the violence hatred between the people which disturb the peace internal and external peace of the country citizens have given the right to express them the right to share their ideas, views on something or any individual which cause the hatred between the peoples it’s very important to balance this both things on freedom of speech. As to maintain the sovereignty and dignity of the country the balance of this both things is now very important in the current times as influences social media have taken an over the world so people must know the right is come with some restrictions also the action must be taken against the individual who makes such hate speeches and registered such speeches to get viral on internet or anywhere in the world.
SUGGESTION: –
On a wider range freedom of speech comes with the reasonable restrictions to maintain the balance between the freedom of speech and hate speech you must know freedom of speech is not absolute and can be restrict on the grounds of violence hatred or a speech against in community group.
We must identify that what is exactly the hate speech is considering the factors which harms to the societal norms or the principles of a society. the speech made against a significant group criticism which is not in positive manner, false statements is consider as a hate speech. citizens are allowed to do a positive criticism over any individua, courts, State or state government but not allowed to made such statements that will lowers its authority or dignity in the eyes of citizens which will lead to aggression towards the government. so, maintaining the balance, we can face some challenges as defining the line that what is the debate or what is the harmful or hate speech and its impact on the marginalised group creating peaceful environment for them as they will not face the discrimination verbally by anyone’s speech.
By putting some reasonable restrictions and grounds can help to maintain the balance between freedom of speech and hate speech
For that hate speech must be define by any definition in India so the citizen should know exact meaning of the hate speech and restrict them from doing so.
CONCLUSION
As India is the diverse country there are so many group of people distinct from the tradition, language, race, sections, so any speech made against any group may cause a controversy in the state which disturbs of public peace and order in the country so maintaining the balance between the freedom of speech and hate speech it is important to define what is hate speech so that people can aware about the thing that doing making any statement they make in publication, the debate they do in a public. As we know our words are very important however we are expressing ourself should not violet the right of any other people or any other individual in the country.
As per the social media nowadays become very dominant on the country as the any fake news any false statement get viral with the speed of light as same as any important news gets to the people so this should be balanced by aware about their rights and reasonable restrictions. what are right has we can see article 19 in the fundamental rights provide us right to freedom of speech and expression in clause A but it has some limited restrictions the reasonable restriction which avoid us from expressing our thoughts as we want. hate speech can disturb the peace of the country and can cause arm rebellion with another States The controversy in the public affairs controversy in individual defamations they are so many things which can cause by the hate speech so people have to aware about the that how they are expressing their words act which should not cause violence threat to the country. Concluding my research it’s important to maintain balance and aware individual about this that it’s a tort / civil wrong there committing.
REFERENCE
1. Indian polity book of M. LAXMIKANT
2. The EURUCALL review, volume 25, Poland
3. Orissa paper research
4. paper based on freedom so speech and expression by Rd. Sudarshan Behera
5. NLU, Delhi handbook for resect project writing
6. www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates
7. Researchgate.com
8. https://blog.ipleaders.in
AUTHOR
Name: – Rutuja Sudhakar Badhe
Class: – LLB II
College: – Modern Law College, Pune