The Karnataka Hate Speech Bill: Ambitious, But Edging Toward Dangerous Territory
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2025-12-11 15:25:00
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
A first by Karnataka
Karnataka has done what the Union has repeatedly avoided: write a dedicated law on hate speech and hate crimes. On paper, it looks modern, even progressive. It defines hate speech with unusual clarity, identifies protected groups exhaustively, and brings the digital universe squarely within its scope. In a country drowning in polarisation and casual bigotry, that ambition deserves acknowledgment.
But the real test of any speech law is not in how neatly it is drafted. It is in how easily it can be turned against the very freedoms the Constitution protects. This is where Karnataka's bill begins to slip.
Better definition
Unlike the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which still relies on colonial-era formulations about "enmity" and "hurt sentiments," the Karnataka Bill attempts precision. It covers spoken, written, visual and electronic communication; limits itself to public acts; and extends protection across religion, caste, tribe, gender identity, sexual orientation, language, disability and place of birth. In terms of drafting, it is ahead of anything Indian law currently offers. It resembles the definitional logic of the UN's Rabat Plan and European hate speech frameworks far more than the vague Indian template.
Bold move on online hate
Where Karnataka makes its boldest move is online. By appointing a designated officer empowered to direct intermediaries to remove or block content, the bill embraces the reality that hate has migrated from the street corner to the smartphone. Europe went down this path years ago with instruments like the Digital Services Act and Germanyâs NetzDG. India has not. Karnataka has.
But the parallels end there. Europe surrounds such powers with transparency requirements, appeal mechanisms and judicial checks. Karnataka provides none of these. It gives the State the authority to make content disappear, but not the public any clarity on how, why or how often.
Where the problem lies
The larger worry lies in the structure of punishment and enforcement. The bill prescribes one to seven years' imprisonment for a first offence and two to ten years for subsequent ones. It makes all offences cognisable and non-bailable. This combination - severe sentences and unrestricted arrest powers - is precisely what global democracies avoid. In the UK, most hate speech offences require proof of likely violence. In Canada, prosecutions need judicial authorisation. In the United States, criminalisation is limited to direct incitement to imminent lawless action. Karnataka goes further than all three while providing fewer safeguards than any of them.
That is the contradiction at the heart of this law. It promises protection, but writes in the architecture of misuse.
India's recent history should have made lawmakers cautious. Section 66A of the IT Act was a masterclass in how a badly designed speech law becomes a political weapon. The ease with which FIRs are filed against journalists, comics, teachers and students shows how quickly "injury" can be claimed and how readily police power is mobilised. Karnataka now adds another category of offence where "injury" - a subjective, undefinable mental state - can authorise arrest.
Welcome exemptions
The bill's exemptions for academic, artistic, literary, scientific and bona fide religious work are a welcome gesture but are not enough. They do not substitute for the constitutional test that the Supreme Court has repeated for decades: only speech that amounts to incitement to violence or threatens imminent disorder can be criminalised. Anything broader invites abuse.
Contemporary law but without guardrails
In comparative terms, Karnataka's law is more contemporary than India's national framework, more ambitious than the Union's inertia, and more aligned with global drafting techniques than anything else we have seen domestically. But ambition without restraint is a familiar Indian disease. A law meant to restrain hatred may end up restraining dissent.
Karnataka is right to recognise India's crisis of hate speech. But if it does not embed constitutional guardrails - judicial oversight, narrow incitement-based thresholds, transparency in takedown orders, and strict limits on police discretion - it will merely create a new instrument of control wrapped in the language of protection.
This bill can be a milestone. It can also be a warning. At the moment, it is far too close to the second.
