The Karnataka government has tabled a hate speech bill in the Assembly amid opposition from the Opposition and amid reservations from civil society groups who fear that the powers given to the government could be misused.
The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025 was tabled on Wednesday, December 10, in the Karnataka Assembly during the ongoing winter session.
The Congress government began talking of a hate speech law a couple of months after a series of communal murders in coastal Karnataka, starting with the lynching of a Muslim man named Ashraf in April.
Home Minister G Parameshwara introduced the bill in the Assembly and Speaker UT Khader put the bill to vote, to which the Opposition said ‘No’ amid uproar. The Speaker then adjourned the House.
While the BJP has claimed that the proposed law will target Hindu organisations, civil society groups too have reservations about the government giving itself powers to take down content published online.
While the current draft is largely similar to the previous draft bill prepared by the government and leaked in June, it includes some new provisions that civil society groups criticise as being excessive.
Hate speech
The bill defines hate speech as any prejudiced communication in public view that is intended to harm an individual, group or community. The prejudice includes religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe.
This definition is similar to the one in the previous draft unofficially released by the government.
If a person committing an offence under the law is an organisation or institution, the people in charge of the organisation at the time of the offence and the organisation itself would also be prosecuted. However, office bearers would not be penalised if they proved that the offence was committed without their knowledge or if they had exercised due diligence to ensure such offences are not committed.
This provision was not in the previous draft, which had included abetment of hate speech, but made no mention of organisations whose members are accused of hate speech.
Communication that is proved to be made for the public good in the interest of science, art or learning, or for bona fide religious or heritage purposes will not be penalised.
Punishment
A hate crime is defined as a communication of hate speech and is punishable by a sentence of 1 to 7 years and a fine of Rs 50,000, for the first conviction. Subsequent convictions are punishable by a sentence of between 2-10 years with a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
In the previous draft, the accused, abettors, and intermediaries could be imprisoned for up to 3 years and a fine.
The punishment in the current draft bill has drawn criticism from legal experts who argue that providing for a maximum punishment of 10 years would place these offences beyond the scope of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and give the police wide powers to arrest.
In 2014, the Supreme Court laid down what came to be called the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, which detailed grounds and procedures for arrests, directing the police to show that arrest was necessary as the accused might destroy evidence, abscond or attempt to influence witnesses. In spirit, the guidelines make arrest the exception, not the rule, in offences where the maximum punishment for the offence is 7 years.
The proposed bill also provides for compensation of victims.
If enacted, the bill would allow the executive magistrate or police officers of Deputy Superintendent of Police and above to take prevention measures to stop the commission of offences under the law.
Removal of content
Designated officers notified by the state government would have the powers to direct service providers, intermediaries or other entities to remove hate crime materials including from electronic media. Government officials would be protected for acts of good faith under the law.
These provisions were not included in the previous draft bill and have been resisted by activists and civil society groups when the Union government attempted to introduce hate speech laws.