BRS seeks withdrawal of Telangana’s anti-hate speech bill, says it could hurt free speech

The Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) has demanded the withdrawal of Telangana’s proposed anti-hate speech bill, saying it could become a tool to silence opposition and media criticism. If the bill isn’t withdrawn, the opposition party said it must be fundamentally redrafted with its suggested safeguards and put through genuine public consultation and hearings before being returned to the Assembly. 

The Telangana Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill 2026 was introduced in the Assembly in March, and was referred to a Select Committee following objections from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), and the Communist Party of India (CPI). 

Now, responding to the Select Committee’s call to the public for suggestions or objections on the Bill, BRS has asked the committee to withdraw it or redraft it. The party submitted its views to the committee through a letter from the party’s state general secretary Soma Bharat Kumar dated October 25. 

The letter said that BRS shares the bill’s stated goal of protecting citizens from incitement to violence and hatred, but believes that in its present form, the draft legislation “does not serve that goal, offends the Constitution of India, and carries a grave risk of being used against lawful criticism, the free press and the Opposition.”

BRS said that the bill poses risk of misuse against the media and political dissent. 

“Telangana's social media and independent media are today actively scrutinising government performance. A law of this breadth, enforced by the executive, will have a chilling effect on that scrutiny, which is the lifeblood of a democracy,” the letter said. 

The letter points out that the Bill's own Statement of Objects identifies "digital and social media platforms" as its main target. It allows a mere complaint against a news channel, a YouTuber, a social media page administrator or a political spokesperson to trigger arrest on a non-bailable charge before any court examines the content under question, BRS said. 

The letter also said that parts of the Bill are too vague, with terms such as ‘injury, ‘disharmony’, ‘ill-will’, and ‘prejudicial interest’ remaining undefined. The letter also criticised the bill’s provision for punishment up to 10 years for some offences, executive take-down powers with no hearing, and preventive action against "repeat offenders" defined merely by being charged earlier, even if not convicted. 

The 10-year punishment ceiling allows for circumvention of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines which provides protection from immediate arrests in cases involving offences with punishment of less than seven years, BRS noted. 

BRS also objected to the bill conflating the offense of hate speech with hate crime. 

It made several suggestions to redraft the bill, including restoring presumption of innocence,  defining “repeat offender” by prior conviction and not just charges, lowering the maximum punishment to under five years of imprisonment, making first offences bailable and an offence non-cognizable except on a written complaint and a preliminary inquiry, and requiring consent of the Advocate General or a senior officer (of the rank of Superintendent of Police or above) before registration of an FIR against a journalist, editor or political functionary.

The party also suggested adding penalties for false, malicious or politically motivated complaints and compensation to wrongly accused persons. 

The draft bill aims to ‘comprehensively prevent, regulate, and penalise acts that promote enmity and disharmony among individuals and groups.’ The bill makes hate crimes cognisable and non-bailable offences that can be tried by a Judicial Magistrate First Class. 

The bill defined hate speech to include “spoken or written words, signs, visible representations, and electronic communications intended to cause injury, disharmony, or hatred” against individuals, class, or group of people or community “to meet any prejudicial interest”. The bill defines prejudicial interests as religion, race, caste, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, language, disability, and tribe.

While being very similar to Karnataka’s anti-hate speech legislation brought in by the Congress government, the Telangana draft law limits preventive action, such as maintaining peace and public order, to cases involving known “repeat offenders” who are likely to commit or threaten to commit an offence.