There was a private member bill in 2022 which dealt with this matter

(https://sansad.in/getFile/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/Asintroduced/Hate%20speech-%20KR-%20E%201219202350136PM.pdf?source=legislation) in case anyone is interested in the full text

One of the key features of this bill is that it seems to have a wide variety of beneficiaries. Here's an excerpt from the bill

(3. A person who intentionally and within the hearing or sight of another person or

group of persons uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provides, distributes or

directs the performance of any speech that:—

(i) incites, justifies, promotes or spreads discrimination, hatred, hostility, or

violence against a person or group of persons; or

(ii) denigrates a person or group of persons by reasons of their real or

attributed characteristics or status, which includes religion, race, caste or

community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, national or

ethnic origin, language, age, or disability shall be guilty of an offence of hate

speech.)

This is the definition of the offence of hate speech in this bill , is it likely to pass the constitutionality test ? , is it good legislation ? And finally how likely is this to even pass ? Private member bills usually get sidestepped , this bill hasn't lapsed yet and has been pending for a while now. I've always found it frustrating how private member bills are essentially useless and irrelevant even though they cover many issues that government doesn't draft bills on (there's bills on universal Healthcare and dealing with extreme poverty that were drafted by private members)

I was just going through this Bill and holy shit is it poorly drafted. Look at s.295A which is sought to be added into the IPC by section 19 of this Bill. The second proviso to this proposed s.295A uses the following words "....which shall be assessed by the factors as specified in sub-section (2) of section 5 of this Act." This proviso is referring to s.5(2) of the Bill and not the IPC. No one proof read this. At least the proviso sought to be added to s.505(3) of the IPC by s.21 of the Bill does not contain this same error. That proviso specifies that s.5(2) of this Bill is being referred to.

Just because you're offering the opportunity to be authoritarian to a diverse group of people does not mean that you're not an authoritarian. Mutually assured destruction is still destruction. I do not want identity groups fighting each other in courts for saying taboo/heretical things. I want a citizenry that's smart enough to demand accountability from the political and media class.

The group that this law attacks- are heretics and comedians and provocateurs and truth tellers-

You create a law that punishes people for what they think or speak to this extent, you will create a citizenry that's paranoid and self-censoring to the extent that you wont have intelligent sincere discussion about our most important issues.

lefties downvoting me don't understand what this law even does. They think there's clear oppressors and victims, and the bill will target oppressors. They cannot seem to move beyond this black and white view of the world and narcissism about their own virtue.

The critical caste studies scholar who has made his name by shaming savarna women for not dating him- would be in jail if this bill were law. The queer they/them scholar who wants to write about the sexual preferences of brahmin men- he would be in jail if this bill were law. The comedian who holds up the constitution while he makes jokes about brahmins and baniyas in the supreme court - jail if this bill were law. South Indian politicians expressing concern about delimitation and the lagging human development metrics of their North Indian neighbors would be in jail if this were law. the lesbian who doesn't want males in prisons, the heretic who might expose the oppression of women or children in her religion, the protestor who might take either side in israel/palestine, all in jail.Periyar would be jailed under this law for his comments about jews. Gandhi for his comments about boers. Ambedkar would be for the things he said about hindus and muslims. Some of these people are heroes for academics on the left. Some of them are hateful bigots. But the authoritarians fail to understand that the exact constitution that gives their faves freedom to be problematic has to give their opponents freedom to be problematic too.

I disagree with some of these people about social issues, and I agree with others. But I still think they should have the right to speak their mind-—all of them.

Why do you not like our Constitution?

You make fair points honestly. But I'm still concerned about the fact that a large amount of people might not be interested in civil discourse of any kind. There's also the problem that some people will inevitably have a higher voice by virtue of having higher capital (think social media companies pushing agendas etc or censoring opposing viewpoints and lobbyists) I'm not saying this bill can necccesarily solve any of that but I do think we are going to need some form of regulatory catalyst to make sure that some voices aren't unduly priviliged over others

what are you even trying to say? Who has higher capital? You do understand whichever side of the political aisle youre on- the other side always assumes youre benefitting from flattering media coverage?

Issues of access to press are different from issues of free expression.

Isn't it far more reasonable to limit freedom of speech to freedom of criticism of the state and its policies ? Since the state is what has the real and effective power to influence every aspect of our life. I'm not sure it would be appropriate to extend freedom of speech to non state actors in an unrestricted manner. Sure there should be freedom of speech in that dimension as well but I don't think that in a deeply divided and gullible population it should be unrestricted. BUT and this is a big but , I think regulation on speech in private sphere should not restricted the substance of the speech itself but it's form so that reasonable discourse can be had

No. It's just more authoritarian. That's not how freedom works. Who does and doesn't count as state? Is it just people on government pay roll? is it just for the work they do in their professional capacity? is it also lobby groups? is it also people who work in NGOs who try to move the state to do one thing or another? is it also government teachers and doctors who might be doing malpractice? what about those in aided institutions? What about temples and mosques and churches that get tax breaks? what if they exclude women and lower caste fellows from their spaces? what about media houses that get money in advertising revenue from the government? what about individual influencers who get money from political parties? are political parties state? are they not? theyre expressly private entities but I cannot criticise a political party for its religious/ caste rhetoric?

What are we engaging in this exercise for? What harm is it that we're so concerned about avoiding? Why are we starting from the fundamentally illiberal position that free speech is bad and must be an exception and not the norm? Why do you dislike our Constitution?

It certainly isnt more reasonable because any harm youre talking about when its just "hate speech" is at best a dignity harm. There's no physical harm. And dignity rights are simply not absolute. Other people have rights too. If there is physical harm- we already have IPC and BNS. most offences against body and property are well defined.

Who even said the state is the only actor to be held accountable? You either have a free speech country where we disagree with each other, learn how to disagree with each other, and build. Or you have a society where you will never progress because you are actively repressing speech. Why on earth do you want to live in a society where you couldn't question religious orthodoxies or casteist groups or sexist groups?

Honestly, I am baffled that this is a lawyer's forum when basic free speech ideas are so poorly understood. Your education system has failed you, I'm afraid.

But the problem doesn't even end with you. We're already in a country where press freedom is under attack by the government. Now whatever is left of free speech will be scavenged by woke idiots. And you'll still never see that you've become that which you detest.

I don't believe that soft power like speech needs to remain unregulated. There's obvious many examples of speech that can be harmful. I.e homophobic, racist and casteist hate speech. I was just asking that if censorship isn't the answer them what is ? The harm that needs to be curbed is the disproportionate attention harmful ideas get

speech is not "soft power" what ever that means. free speech actually is a basic human right. If you understood anything about our constitution or political history you would know that. Liberty is the souls right to breathe. It violates the dignity and autonomy of people to censor speech. And it hampers the ability of the human race to discuss difficult matters and actually move forward and find the truth and find some answers.

What actual harm does homophobic casteist racist speech cause? Its just speech. Who is so hurt by speech? Surely if hearing someone say something you dont like causes such psychic harm thats something you need to work on for your own wellbeing instead of forcing everyone else to conform to your morality. Short of speech that incites violence- I dont know why any speech should be regulated at all.

I dont like homophobes or casteists or racists- my answer to them - which is unimaginable to authoritarians- is to engage with them and change their minds. I dont think suppressing their speech reduces actual prejudice do you? In fact it might make them retreat into their bubbles and cause deep divisions in society.

Who decides what are harmful ideas? You do? the majority of the country does? the oppressed victim classes? academic elite? thats the problem you see. In real life people genuinely disagree about what is harmful and its mad to me that you say things like "harmful ideas" without realising exactly how much you might have in common with everyone who supported tyranny. This is not what our constitution is about. Are you sure you want to be in a democracy? do you even understand what that means?

because youve made it clear you think the freedoms the constitution mentions in its fundamental rights chapter should be subservient to your conception of right and wrong, beneficial and harmful. You dont seem to agree that people in a democracy should be free to disagree about things, important things, and have a right to say and think what they like. its very anti democratic. Its exactly this stuff that our freedom fighters fought against. You clearly dislike the basic building blocks on which our constitution is built. Article 19 exists. If you want it to not-you dont like the constitution. You dont like what our country is about. You want to live in an authoritarian regime where the government can put you in prison for saying the wrong thing "for the greater good". that is not what I see in the consitution.

You're also making blanket assumptions.... Nowhere did I state that non state actors don't need to be held accountable. Regulation ≠ outright censorship. You also missed the part where I said that on non state actors , regulation of speech should be regarding its form and not it's substance

You literally said only speech about state should be protected and everything private can be subject to hate crime laws. What regulation? Why are you trying to squirrel away your argument through word magic? The question is whether someone should go to jail because they said something you or I or even the majority of the people deem to be hateful. You think they should. Thats what this law does that youre supporting. calling it regulation or censorship doesnt make that much of a difference. You can call it reeducation or you can call it puppification- nicer sounding words wont mask the reality of what youre proposing.

Tell me who do you imagine will be enforcing this law? do you trust the police and the judiciary and the state to enforce a law like this without targeting their opponents? Authoritarians never assume that they might not be the ones in power- its bananas.

Look at the government today- who are they more likely to put in prison given half the chance? a comedian who makes fun of "bamans and baniyas" or a comedian who makes fun of opposition leaders? I understand you consider most of the country to be intolerant bigots who should just be censored and not engaged with. But for your own self-interest, doesn't it make sense to limit state power in censoring speech? My god, has law school failed you.

What form? What are you even talking about? Think about what you're writing for two seconds. How do you regulate form of speech and not content? You can write prose but not poetry? You can make a speech but not a movie? That's such an artificial and meaningless distinction that you're hiding behind to make it seem like this kind of regulation can ever be reasonable or constitutional. It is neither. You either have free speech to say taboo things or you dont.

The only limits that should be acceptable to civilized people is incitement to criminal offences. thats it. I miss 2014 when the left was the party of free speech and the bastion of liberalism. What a shame it is that the youth are so ill informed and ill educated that one needs to educate law students on the basics.

When I said only speech against "state" should be protected. I meant that only speech against state should have ABSOLUTE protection. In no way does that mean that speech against non state actors shouldn't be protected. Just that it shouldn't be absolute. What are you even on about

There is no absolute right to free speech. That was never my argument. I have repeatedly told you what I think is a reasonable restriction—incitement to violence. Hurt sentiments however sincerely and deeply felt simply are not a reasonable restriction. You have just used weasel words when youre not clear about your position. The proposed bill will jail people for saying things about caste/ religion/ language/ ethnicity etc. That's what I was debating. If you want to change the question to something else- you should tell people youre engaging with rather than simply move goalposts.

You likely should tell people youre still in school. I would have been less impatient. its a forum most commonly used by lawyers or to-be lawyers. You should be a little more open minded if you want to be a lawyer someday. Start by assuming the best of your opponents in political life and in debates like this. Address the best argument from both sides and youll sharpen your own argument.