Hate speech under BNS

This article is written by Abhinaya Moses, a second-year LLM (Taxation Laws) student at Government Law College, Coimbatore. This Article examines the impact of hate speech on public order, judicial interpretations and relevant landmark judgments that have shaped India’s legal framework in addressing hate speech.

Hate speech has emerged as a major issue in India’s heterogeneous society endangering both public order and communal harmony. The startling increase in these occurrences has spurred extensive discussions about the necessity of more stringent legal measures. With 1165 recorded incidents, hate speech cases increased by 74.4% over the previous year according to the 2024 India Hate Lab Report. Many of these incidents took place during the general election season underscoring the social and political tensions that feed hate speech. The most frequently targeted groups were religious minorities and nearly half of these cases occurred in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh.

Due to the threats posed by hate speech, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) has included laws to prevent hate crimes and uphold social order . Concerns concerning hate speech effects on national stability and the efficiency of current legislation in combating this problem are raised by its growing prevalence. This article attempts to address the expanding issue by examining the definition of hate speech under Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and the BNS’s legal framework.

Introduction

Any verbal, written or symbolic expression that incites violence, discrimination or hostility against people or groups on the basis of characteristics like religion, caste, ethnicity, gender or nationality is generally considered hate speech. Hate speech is defined as “speech that expresses hatred toward a particular group especially in circumstances likely to incite violence” by Black’s Law Dictionary.

Propaganda being a major factor in enabling atrocities during World War II, hate speech regulation historically gained traction in the years following the conflict. As a result, international accords such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) now contain anti-hate clauses. In order to prevent religious provocations, the British introduced Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1927 marking the beginning of India’s legal provisions addressing hate speech. Following its independence, India broadened its legal system to control speech that might cause disturbances or provoke violence.

A continuation of these initiatives is the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) which strengthens legal measures to combat the increasing threats that hate speech poses to modern society.

THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution recognizes freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right that is necessary for democracy. Since Article 19(2) allows for reasonable limitations in the interests of public order, sovereignty, integrity, security of the state, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offense this right is not unqualified.

Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) is one of the most important cases pertaining to free speech. In this case the Supreme Court underlined that a democratic society is built on the principle of free speech. The same is true in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972) where the Court decided that limitations on newsprint availability for newspapers were in violation of Article 19(1)(a).

However, in some cases the judiciary has also supported limitations on free expression. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) the Court held that concerns about public order must be weighed against the right to free speech. Also, in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 was held unconstitutional because it violated the right to free speech as it was too broad and ambiguous.

Building on the framework set by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) adds specific provisions to address hate speech. These rules are intended to prevent speech or behaviour that incites violence, hatred or discrimination against people or groups on the basis of their caste, religion, race or community.

When discussing the BNSs provisions regarding hate speech the following sections are especially important.

(i) SECTION 196

Activities that incite animosity between various groups on the basis of caste, religion, race, domicile, language or community are forbidden by Section 196. This covers any effort to disrupt the peace in the public sphere by using written or spoken words, signs, visual aids or electronic communication. Offenders risk a fine up to three years in prison or both. Such offenses may result in up to five years in prison and a fine if they take place in places of worship or during religious ceremonies.

(ii) SECTION 197

Claims against national integration are addressed in Section 197. It makes it illegal to make false accusations that people from any caste, community, racial, religious or linguistic group cannot uphold India’s sovereignty or have genuine faith in the country’s constitution.

Furthermore, the section forbids any content that incites animosity between groups or suggests denial of citizenship rights on the basis of group identity. A fine up to three years in jail or both may result from violations. The penalty can go up to five years in prison and a fine if it is committed in a religious setting.

(iii) SECTION 299

In Section 299, intentional and malevolent actions that insult religion or religious beliefs are the main focus. This covers written or spoken words, signs, visual aids and electronic correspondence. The punishment for offenders can be a fine up to three years in prison or both.

HATE SPEECH UNDER IPC

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) has a number of clauses designed to keep the peace and stop hate speech. Here are a few pertinent provisions;

(i) SECTION 153A

In order to maintain peace, Section 153A punishes words and deeds that incite animosity between various racial, religious, linguistic or regional groups. Offenders may be sentenced up to three years in prison, a fine or both.

(ii) SECTION 153B

Section 153B makes it illegal to say or express anything that claims a certain community or group is not an Indian part thereby undermining national unity.

(iii) SECTION 295A

Section 295A addresses specifically intentional and malevolent acts that are meant to offend religious sentiments through written or spoken words, signs or visible representations. It imposes a maximum sentence of three years in prison, a fine or possibly both.

(iv) SECTION 505

Statements that incite public mischief such as rumours or messages that could incite violence or disturb the peace are covered by Section 505 of the law.

COMPARISON BETWEEN IPC AND BNS

Aspect	Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860	Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
Promoting Enmity Between Groups	Section 153A Encouraging animosity between groups makes it illegal to take part in activities that incite animosity between various groups on the basis of factors like religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and is punishable by up to three years in prison, a fine or both.	Section 196 Similar to Section 153A of the IPC but with the addition that electronic communications can be used to spread hatred. A fine and up to five years in jail are possible punishments for offenses committed in places of worship or during religious ceremonies.
Assertions Prejudicial to National Integration	Section 153B This section claims that some groups shouldn’t be given citizenship rights or that those who can’t actually follow the Constitution are punished by statements that undermine national integration. It also responds to accusations and claims that jeopardize national unity. Potential punishments include a fine three years in prison or both.	Section 197 Conforms to IPC Section 153B specifically mentioning electronic communication and taking into account contemporary contexts. Religious offenses are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine.
Deliberate and Malicious Acts Intended to Outrage Religious Feelings	Section 295A It provides for punishment as a fine of up to three years in prison or both for deliberate and malicious acts that are intended to offend religious sentiments by demeaning religion or religious beliefs.	Section 299 Updates the wording to include modern forms of communication such as electronic means while maintaining the essential elements of IPC Section 295A.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

In India courts are still attempting to strike a balance between free speech and public order and hate speech is still a significant legal concern. The following discusses a few key court rulings that have influenced the current hate speech laws.

(i) Justice Yadav ‘Hate Speech’ Case (2025)

During a December 2024 Vishwa Hindu Parishad event Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court allegedly made disparaging remarks about Islam and argued that India’s laws should reflect the wishes of the majority. The Supreme Court started disciplinary actions as a result of the intense controversy these comments caused.

Using Sections 196 and 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, thirteen senior advocates claimed in a letter to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna that Justice Yadav’s remarks qualified as hate speech. The Supreme Court reacted by initiating an internal investigation to evaluate possible transgressions of judicial conduct and the need for additional measures. The judiciary’s dedication to maintaining impartiality and ethical standards is demonstrated by this case particularly when bench members are accused of hate speech.

(ii) Hindu Sena Samiti v. Union of India (2024)

In an effort to establish regulations to prevent political leaders from using hate speech the Hindu Sena Samiti filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which the Supreme Court dismissed. According to the Court, current legislation including Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is sufficient to combat hate speech. Instead of drafting new regulations it underlined how important it is to effectively implement these laws.

(iii) Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

There were questions about whether remarks made by a public figure about a sexual assault case might infringe upon citizens fundamental rights under Article 21. According to the petitioners, public officials ought to answer for remarks that compromise state responsibility and individual dignity. The Supreme Court ruled that “statements made by public officials do not directly impose state liability or represent government policy”. It did however highlight the State’s obligation to protect people under Article 21. Although Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, the Court stressed that public officials should exercise restraint to safeguard constitutional values and prevent harm.

(iv) Azam Khan Hate Speech Case (2022)

In October 2022 Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan was convicted of making hate speech during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. According to Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act which deals with inciting animosity between classes in connection with elections and Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with remarks that cause public alarm the court found him guilty. After being sentenced to three years in prison, he was expelled from the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly.

CONCLUSION

A major turning point in India’s legal history is the introduction of stricter anti-hate speech laws in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 which safeguards both national integrity and intercommunal harmony. Although the law seeks to stop divisive speech; public awareness, judicial interpretation, and consistent enforcement are necessary for its effectiveness. It is still difficult to strike a balance between the right to free speech and the need to avoid incitement which calls for constant policy improvement and responsible leadership. Hate speech laws can be ensured to fulfil their intended purpose without compromising fundamental rights through a strong legal framework, proactive implementation and digital regulation.

Hate speech under BNS – Easy explanation

Introduction

THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH