Context: As there are no laws on hate speech as such, India needs political and pedagogical solution to the menace.
About hate speech
Core principle of prohibiting hate speech: In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Case (1942),S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution does not protect ‘insulting or fighting’ words, which inflict injury or tends to breach peace.
Taking a cue, liberal democracies prohibit certain speech in societal interest.
Need for prohibition of hate speech in liberal democracies
Hate speech is against dignity and equality of individuals: As hate speech views members as an enemy, illegitimate and unequal, creating fissures in social fabric.
It creates barriers of mistrust and hostility between individuals and groups, obstructs normal relations & creates a corrosive influence on the collective life.
It degrades democratic values: In B. Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) Case, SC of India stated that, hate speech influences the ability of protected group to respond to the substantive ideas under debate and becomes a barrier to participatory democracy.
Essential in protecting minority views and interests: Which otherwise will go un-noticed under majoritarian rhetoric.
Issues with hate speech
Definitional issues: As hate speech as such, is not defined under Constitution or in penal statutes.
Law suffers from disuse and misuse: Arising from biased implementation, vague charging of the provision etc.
Law fails to check ideology of hatred in society, which is still used as a political tool.
Way forward: We need a political and pedagogical solution to the menace
Constitutional ideas of equality, liberty and fraternity must be made topics of continuing public education.
Responsibility of State: To invoke existing law judiciously in appropriate cases. It must also take a secular stand based on the rule of law and educate the masses.