Abstract: Crossing the bar of decency and appropriate language in the political scenario in India has become a common phenomenon in the present times. The whole tenor of political discourse is tainted with abusive and foul language. Not only this but also, they often indulge in a diatribe relating to the religion of their opponents. Practically, they speak such language and still manage to go scot free without any dent to their reputation. They seek their entitlement from the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression contained in the Part 3 of the Indian Constitution. However, this is in direct contrast to the Constitutional mandate which allows freedom of speech with certain restrictions enumerated under Article 19(1)a &(2). Even the police don't register any cases against them except when someone from the other side takes the lead. In the recent past, the Supreme Court of India also refrained from issuing any guidelines for exercising any control over the frequent use of hate speech among the politicians. The worst form of hate speech comes out during the elections where all the limitations are crossed by them in attacking their political rivals with the most vituperative language. Insinuations and innuendos of all kinds are hurled at each-other. The worrying part is that their supporters also don't take it seriously. Rather, they endorse their leader's views including the language part. There seems to be no appropriate law dealing with politicians in this regard. This paper deals with the exact legal remedies and also suggests the other solutions to check the menace which is showing upward trends.

Introduction

Though hate speech is a normal phenomenon among the humans in their day-to-day behaviour, it has become a new normal in the political discourse currently prevailing in India. It appears that their political journey is incomplete without indulging into a political rhetoric replete with a sufficient amount of hate speech. Factually, "Indian politics has a hate speech problem. It is a problem that cuts across parties". Politicians never lose an opportunity to use vituperative language against their political rivals, even on some trivial or petty matters. But most of their outrageous outbursts spring forth either during elections or in regard to some religious matter. In the latter case, such hate speeches more often than not, turn into communal clashes in different parts of the country. The bigger problem is that when hate speech emanates from a central or state minister, it seems to have official sanction. Or in the least, the people perceive in them the stance of that particular political party on the issue-in-question. Sometimes, a denial doesn't come fast allowing the people to make their own guess works and assessments. Further, the irony is that no politician has really paid for hate speech with their political careers. Rather, it becomes a convenient prop for winning elections, and often getting promotions in the party's hierarchy or ministerial berth. It is indeed surprising how the voters choose them as their representatives in the legislature of the States and the Centre, instead of discarding them. Although there are appropriate provisions in the statute books such as Indian Penal Code in particular, yet the first information report is not registered in many cases by the police or the citizens. Where this happens, a long time is taken by the courts to finally adjudicate upon the pending matter. As a result, the political leaders roam scot free and never learn the lessons from their past mistakes. This is the nation and its citizens who bear the brunt of the disastrous consequences of hate speeches blurted out by the political leaders in general. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to enumerate some prominent instances of hate speeches articulated by the political leaders in India from time to time as such:

1. In the beginning of the Month of June, 2023, the deputy chief minister of Maharashtra, Devendra Fadnavis addressed some sections of people as "Aurangzeb-ki-aulad" in a rally. Communal tension followed in Kolhapur district sparked by allegedly provocative social media posts.
2. In the first week of April, 2023, Swami Prasad Maurya, a Samajwadi Party leader in Uttar Pradesh, was booked in Raebareli district for allegedly hurting religious sentiments with his statements during the unveiling of a statue of BSP founder Kanshi Ram. On April 3, a video went viral on social media in which he says "Mile Mulayam, Kanshi Ram; hawa mein udd Gaye jai Shri Ram".
3. Earlier, two cases were lodged against Swami Prasad Maurya, an OBC leader, in Lucknow over his Ramcharitmanas remarks. He claimed therein that the epic poem has "objectionable language" for Dalits, tribals and backward classes. Before him, Bihar education minister Chandra Shekhar, too, claimed that Ramcharitmanas contained several objectionable remarks over caste.
4. During Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh, a sitting MLA and the BJP candidate from Dumariyaganj seat, Raghavendra Pratap Singh made inflammatory speech while addressing a public meeting.
5. Another BJP candidate from Tiloi seat in Uttar Pradesh, Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh, made an inflammatory speech in which he equated his opponent with a Mughal invader. Election Commission of India banned the candidate for 24 hours from electioneering purposes.
6. The Kerala politician P.C. George was arrested by the police on May 1st, 2022, after he delivered a hate speech targeting the Muslim community at an event backed by the Sangh Parivar in Thiruvananthapuram. Two days prior to his arrest, he allegedly said at Ananthapuri Hindu Maha Sammelan that restaurants run by Muslims should be avoided because they use "some kind of drops" that cause impotence. He also talked of "Love jihad" and an "agenda to establish a Muslim country " by "sterilizing men and women (of other faith)".
7.  A Telangana legislator and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Akbaruddin Owaisi was acquitted in two cases linked to allegedly hate speeches delivered by him nine years ago by a special sessions court in April 2022 by giving him a benefit of doubt. The police failed to produce clinching evidence against Owaisi, the Court observed.
8. In the month of October 2022, a BJP Member of Parliament, Parvesh Verma called for "sampoorna bahishkar" or total boycott of "these people" at a Virat Hindu Sabha organized by, among others, a unit of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Delhi. He didn't name the community to be boycotted. The meeting was held reportedly to protest against the killing of a Hindu man in Sunder Nagri, with six men arrested, all Muslims. This was not the first time, Verma indulged himself in such hate speech. In January 2020, he made provocative remarks against the anti-CAA protesters at Shaheen Bagh in the campaign for the Delhi Assembly elections. For this, he had to face the undesirable ire of the Election Commission of India.
9. In May 2022, a BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma spoke in a debate on a national channel in allegedly derogatory language about the Prophet Muhammad that caused much resentment among the Muslim population in India, and raised a stir among the Muslim countries with whom India holds good relationships. She was removed from the post and later suspended from the party. Her matter is sub-juice in the Supreme Court.
10. In the recently held Karnataka Assembly elections, a lot of hate speech was articulated by the leaders of the political parties targeting Tipu Sultan, and a couple of Hindu religious deities and other leaders with impunity. Unfortunately, the Election Commission of India could not stop the buck effectively.
11. In 2021, Ranjit Udhesi, a former Shiv Sena corporator in Mumbai, had allegedly made a speech at a rally in Mumbai in 2020 targeting Muslims. He was arrested on the grounds of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and making statements that could incite violence. He was granted bail in 2022.
12. Asaduddin Owaisi, the president of the All India Majlis-e-Muslimeen, was arrested in 2022 for making hate speeches against Hindus, allegedly made at a rally in Hyderabad in 2021. He was granted bail in 2022. He was also charged with promoting enmity on the grounds of religion between different groups and making statements that could incite violence.

The Supreme Court and the Hate Speech

The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark Judgments on hate speech in the recent past, especially on politicians' hate speech. This would go a long way in strengthening the roots of Indian democracy. The most significant takeaways from these judgments on hate speech are as follows:

1. Hate speech is a threat to the secular fabric of the country.
2. The police must register FIRs on its own(suo motu) in cases of hate speech, even in the absence of any complaint filed.
3. Politicians can be held liable for contempt of court in case they make hate speeches.
4. Hate speeches can be a form of incitement to violence.
5. Hate speech can have a chilling effect on free speech.

Some landmark judgments of the Supreme Court in the recent past may be enumerated as under:

1. Kaushal Kishor Vs, State of UP

In this case, a five-judge Bench Court dealt with the issue of vicarious responsibility of the government in relation to the hate speech of the ministers concerned. While the four judges, Justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S.Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian rejected the contention, Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented on this point. In her separate opinion, she held "Hate speech strikes at the foundational values of the Constitution by making out a society as being unequal. It also violates the fraternity of citizens from diverse backgrounds, which is the sine qua non of a cohesive society based on plurality and multiculturalism such as in India that is Bharat". She further observed that the public functionaries, influential persons and celebrities have sufficient reach and impact on the public, hence they are duty bound to be more responsible and restrained in their speech. "They are required to understand and measure their words having regard to the likely consequences on public sentiment and behaviour and also be aware of the example they are setting on the fellow citizens to follow". She suggested that "This could be through a code of conduct which would prescribe the limits of permissible speech by functionaries and members of the respective political parties ".

2. Mohammed Zubair Vs. State of Uttarakhand

On October 21, 2021, the Supreme Court held in this case that hate speech is a threat to the secular fabric of the country. It should be dealt with sternly. The Court directed the police to register the first information reports (FIRs) suo motu in cases arising out of hate speech, even if no complaint is filed. The Court further observed that politicians making hate speeches can be held liable for contempt of court.

3. Shaheen Abdulla Vs. Union of India

In this case, the Supreme Court on March 8, 2022 held that hate speech can be a form of incitement to violence. The Court observed that hate speech can create an atmosphere of fear and hostility, which can lead to violence. Hate speech can have a chilling effect on free speech, as people may be afraid to express their views for fear of reprisal.

4. Brenda Karat And Anr. Vs. State of NCT And Anr.

In this case, the Delhi High Court observed that hate speeches delivered by elected representatives, political and religious leaders based on religion or ethnicity militate against the concept of fraternity, bulldoze the Constitutional ethos and violate Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution of India. The Court held "The persons who are mass leaders and occupy high offices must conduct themselves with utmost integrity and responsibility. Leaders elected in a democracy like that of India, owe their responsibility not only towards the electorate in their own constituency, but also towards the society/nation as a whole and ultimately to the Constitution. It is they who are the role models for the ordinary masses. Thus, it does not befit or behove the leaders to indulge in acts or speeches that cause rifts amongst communities, create tensions, and disrupt the social fabric in the society ".

The Court dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by CPM leader Brinda Karat and politician KM Tiwari against a trial court order rejecting their plea for registration of FIR against BJP leader Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in the year 2020.

Election Commission of India and Hate Speech

The Election Commission is generally responsible for taking into cognizance of hate speech delivered by the political leaders during the electoral process. However, their powers are very limited. Whenever the Commission is apprised of any such hate speech delivered at an election meeting, the Returning Officer issues a show cause notice to the candidate or the concerned leader for violating the Model Code of Conduct and electoral law. Sometimes, a temporary and short-term ban is also imposed on electioneering. But this is true that no solid deterrent action is ever taken by the Election Commission. There are two main reasons for it. First, the time period of the electoral process is very short, and there is not much time in-between to take cognizance of the hate speech, Issue show cause notice, and then take deterrent action for the Election Commission officers. After the election is over, everyone forgets about the alleged violation of the Code of Conduct for elections. The matter is hardly pursued vigorously. Secondly, the Representation of the People 's Act,1951 is very weak in this regard. It virtually lacks teeth. Unless the said Act is made more robust and stringent, it will be a tough task to prevent such kind of hate speech by the political leaders during elections.

The Existing Laws to Curb Hate Speech in India

Hate Speech is nowhere defined under any law in India. Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 contains the specific provisions to penalize hate speech. Primarily, Section 295A defines and prescribes a punishment for deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Section 298 encompasses uttering, words, etc.with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person. The State often invokes Section 295A along with Section 153A of the IPC, which penalizes promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony and Section 505 of IPC that punishes statements conducive to public mischief. However, these two main Sections of the IPC are not enough to prevent hate speech. The Constitutional expert, Gautam Bhatia says "Section 295A is an example of what is called the heckler's veto, i.e. it leaves free speech at the mercy of those who choose to take offence, and hands them the power to shut down speech not only for themselves, but for everyone else as well". Similarly, he opines about Section 153A and B as such: "The IPC prohibits hate speech under Sections 153A and B. However, these Sections are clumsily worded, and fail to capture the essence of hate speech ". There is no denying the fact that this over hundred years old law needs to be changed urgently taking stock of the newly emergent situations.

Conclusion

Hate speech has fast become the new normal of the existing political discourse in India. The politicians view it as a convenient ladder to reach high in the political party's hierarchy, and the people, by and large, are either oblivious of its dire consequences or quietly relish the verbal duels committed by different sets of political leaders. The prevailing laws to curb hate speech are very old, and lack the punch entirely. The Election Commission of India seems to be pathetically helpless in dealing with the spate of hate speeches during elections. The Representation of People's Act, 1951 contains no robust provisions to check the menacing trend. There is no denying the fact that in a democracy, political leaders play a very important role in propagating the ideals of liberty, fraternity and equality. People follow them blindly as their role models. That is why the highest level of good behaviour and sophisticated public life is expected from them. Undoubtedly, discussions amongst them on various issues should take place as a healthy practice. But the difference of opinion doesn't mean that any of them should resort to foul and derogatory language for other political leaders involving their religion, religious practices, and personal attributes. This clearly reflects their mental bankruptcy as they are unable to point their finger on the policy lapses, if any. In a democracy, the political leaders are bound to work for the betterment of the public condition by pursuing policies showing their vision. However, the time has reached to take a fresh look at the existing laws to totally curb the obnoxious trend. Also, a model code of conduct should be made and pursued by all the political parties. Recently, the Supreme Court in a judgment refused to draw a guideline to this effect. In that case, the Parliament has to do this job in right earnest. Moreover, the Election Commission is required to play a proactive role instead of limiting itself to a cozy shell. The writing on the wall is clear. If this vicious trend of hate speech prevailing in the political system is not checked timely, the bedrock of Indian democracy will be definitely shaken to the detriment of people living in this country. This is the time to act for all concerned.

.    .    .

References:

• Editorial, Hindustan Times, Nov. 17, 2022.
• Mumbai Dogwhistle, Editorial, The Indian Express, June 10, 2023.
• Express News Service, FIR against Swami Maurya for his remark, Apr 6, 2023.
• Ibid.
• Editorial, Dainik Jagran, a Hindi newspaper from Lucknow, Feb 24, 2022.
• Ibid.
• Shaju Philip, Kerala leader arrested over hate speech, Union MoS backs him, The Indian Express, May 2, 2022.
• The Times of India, Hyderabad, Apr 14, 2022.
• Editorial, Flogging Hate, The Indian Express, Oct 11, 2022.
• Ibid.
• WP (Crl) No. 113/2016.
• Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 279 0f 2022.
• Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No. 940/2022.
• 2022 Live Law (Del) 557.
• Gautam Bhatia, India's laws on hate speech need change, Hindustan Times, June 23, 2022.
• Ibid.