On Friday, the Karnataka Legislative Council approved a bill aimed at regulating hate speech, despite strong opposition from the BJP and JD(S), which criticized it as “draconian,” a “direct attack on free speech,” and a “dangerous tool for political vendetta.”
The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, led by Home Minister G Parameshwara, was voted on amidst protests from opposition members present in the House. This Bill had already passed in the Legislative Assembly on Thursday, encountering dissent from BJP and JD(S) representatives.
The opposition called for the Bill’s withdrawal, arguing that it could lead to a “police state” and an “undeclared emergency,” where even critique could be deemed hate speech.
The minister indicated that the Bill stipulates a one-year jail term, extendable to seven years, accompanied by a fine of ₹50,000 for hate crimes. For repeated offenses, the maximum sentence would reach seven years, with a fine of ₹1 lakh.
“The Bill is intended to protect societal health and maintain peace, not to control anyone or act out of political malice; it applies to all,” he asserted. The Home Minister refuted BJP’s accusations, pointing out that a similar law was enacted in Maharashtra under the BJP government.
The vote was conducted while opposition members crowded the well of the House, demanding an apology from Minister Priyank Kharge for a remark directed at Union Home Minister Amit Shah during the discussions.
BJP demands apology from Congress’ Priyank Kharge
Despite Chairman Basavaraj Horatti’s assurance to expunge the comment, BJP members voiced strong objections and surged into the well of the House, insisting that Priyank Kharge apologize.
As chaos ensued, with ruling party members supporting Priyank Kharge, the Chairman proceeded with the vote, which passed via a voice vote.
The Bill defines “hate speech” as any expression made or circulated, whether spoken, written, signaled, or communicated electronically in public, with the intention of causing harm, discord, or feelings of animosity or hatred against any person, group, or community.
Prejudicial interest refers to biases based on religion, race, caste, community, gender, sexual orientation, place of origin, language, disability, or tribe.
According to the Bill, “hate crime” encompasses the communication, publication, or dissemination of hate speech, or any action aimed at promoting, inciting, or abetting such speech, which fosters discord or enmity towards individuals or groups.
During the debates, BJP MLC C T Ravi remarked that if enacted, the Bill would serve as a “dangerous tool for political vendetta.” He referenced a history of emergencies declared by the party responsible for the law, asserting it could empower actions against political opponents. Ravi cautioned that the Bill would invite judicial review, labeling it an effort to establish a police state. Opposition leader Chalavadi Narayanaswamy echoed concerns that the Bill could enable the filing of “false cases” against political adversaries.
BJP MLC K C Naveen termed the Bill “draconian” and targeted towards the opposition.
He urged the government to withdraw the Bill or send it to a House committee, citing infringement on the constitutional freedom of speech. “This government has failed to act against those who shouted Pakistan Zindabad slogans within Vidhana Sabha premises,” he criticized.
Provisions of the bill, offences cognizable and non-bailable
The proposed legislation classifies offenses as cognizable and non-bailable.
The Bill empowers Executive Magistrates, Special Executive Magistrates, or deputy police superintendents to take “preventive action” if they suspect that individuals or groups in their area may commit an offense under this law.
Exemptions in the Bill apply to books, pamphlets, papers, writings, drawings, or figures when relevant to science, literature, art, education, or “bona fide” heritage or religious aims.
If an organization commits an offense, “every person who was in charge at the time of the offense shall be deemed guilty and liable to prosecution and punishment,” the Bill states, adding that individuals connected with the organization must demonstrate that the offense occurred without their knowledge or that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent it.
As outlined in the Bill, a designated officer notified by the state government will have the authority to direct any service provider or entity to block or eliminate hate crime material from their platforms, including electronic media.
ALSO READ | Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crime Bill tabled | Key provisions explained
