THE CONSTITUTION OF HURT:

THE EVOLUTION OF HATE SPEECH LAW IN

INDIA

SUBMITTED!BY:!SIDDHARTH!ARCOT!ANANTH!

PROGRAM:!LL.M.!!

503PAGE!PAPER!(INDEPENDENT)!!

SUPERVISOR:!PROFESSOR!MARK!TUSHNET!

DATE!OF!SUBMISSION:!APRIL!2014!

! 1!
 TABLE!OF!CONTENTS!

SECTION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! PAGE!NUMBER!

TABLE!OF!CASES………………………………………………………………………………..4!

I.!INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………6!

A. THE!PROBLEM………………………………………………………………………...6!
B. DEFINING!HATE!SPEECH…………………………………………………………7!
C. SUBSTANTIVE!CRIMINAL!LAW!PROVISIONS…………………………….8!
D. SPECIAL!LEGISLATION!RELATED!TO!CASTE!ATROCITIES…………13!
E. ELECTION!LAW……………………………………………………………………….13!
F. MEDIA!LAWS…………………………………………………………………………..14!
G. RESEARCH!METHODOLOGY,!LIMITATIONS!AND!STRUCTURE…..14!

II.!HISTORICAL!DEVELOPMENTS………………………………………………………..16!

A. CONSTITUTIONAL!ASSEMBLY!DEBATES………………………………….16!
B. THE!FIRST!AMENDMENT!AND!AFTER……………………………………..22!
C. THE!SIXTEENTH!AMENDMENT!AND!AFTER……………………………27!

III.!RECENT!DEVELOPMENTS…………………………………………………………….32!

A.!DEBATES!IN!THE!NINETIES…………………………………………………………...32!

1. PROCESS!AS!PUNISHMENT…………………………………………………….33!
2. PROFITABLE!PROVOCATION………………………………………………….34!
3. LISTENER’S!RIGHTS……………………………………………………………….37!!
4. PRODUCTIVE!ASPECTS!OF!SPEECH………………………………………...38!
5. BAZAAR!OF!IDEAS………………………………………………………………….38!
6. LANGUAGE!AND!SPEECH………………………………………………………..39!
7. LAWFARE!AND!THE!JUDICIALIZATION!OF!POLITICS……………….40!

B.!THE!GLOBALIZATION!OF!HATE!SPEECH………………………………………….41!!

IV.!OVERVIEW!OF!DOCTRINE……………………………………………………………...44!

A.!OVERARCHING!PRINCIPLES…………………………………………………………….44!

! 2!
 SECTION! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!PAGE!NUMBER!
!
1. DELIBERATE!AND!MALICIOUS!INTENTION……………………………….44!
2. FORM!AND!CONTENT……………………………………………………………….45!
3. CONTENT!TO!BE!READ!AS!A!WHOLE…………………………………………45!
4. REASONABLE!MAN!STANDARD…………………………………………………45!
5. PROXIMITY!AND!NEXUS……………………………………………………………46!
6. TRUTH!AS!A!DEFENSE………………………………………………………………46!
7. DEFILING!OF!SACRED!IMAGES!AND!OBJECTS…………………………….46!
8. ACADEMIC!AND!SCHOLARLY………….…………………………………………46!

B.!THE!PHILOSOPHY!OF!COMPROMISE…………………………………………………48!

V.!CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………54!

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………………56!

! 3!
TABLE!OF!CASES:!

Abrams'v'United'States,'250!U.S.!616!(1919)!

Anand'Chintamani'Dighe!v!State'of'Maharashtra,!(2002) 2 Mah. L.J. 14 !

Baba'Khalil'Ahmad!v!State,!A.I.R.!1960!All.!715!(India)!

Baragur'Ramachandrappa'&'Ors'v!State'Of'Karnataka'&'Anr,!(2007)!5!S.C.C.!11!
(India)'

Baragur'Ramchandrappa'&'Ors.!v!State'Of'Karnataka'And'Anr.,!1998!Cri.L.J.!3639!

Beauharnais!v'Illinois,!343!U.S.!250!(1952)!

Bhagvati'Charan'Shukla'v!Provincial'Government,!A.I.R.!1947!Nagpur!1!

Bilal'Ahmed'Kaloo'v'State'of'Andhra'Pradesh,!A.I.R.!1997!S.C.!3483!(India)!

Brandenburg!v!Ohio!395!U.S.!444!(1969)!

Brij'Bhushan'v!State'of'Delhi,!A.I.R.!1950!S.C.!129!(India)!

Canada'(Human'Rights'Commission)'v!Taylor,!(1990)!3!S.C.R.!892!(Can.)!

Chandmal'Chopra!v!State'of'West'Bengal,!1988!Cri.!L.J.!739!

Cohen!v'California,!403!U.S.!15!(1971)!

Gopal'Vinayak'Godse!v!State'of'Maharashtra!A.I.R.!1971!Bom.!56!

Harnam'Das!v.!State'of'Uttar'Pradesh,!A.I.R.!1959!All.!538!

In'Re'P.'Ramaswami!v!Unknown!1962!Cri.L.J.!146!

Kedarnath'Singh!v!State'of'Bihar,!A.I.R.!1962!S.C.!955!(India).!

Manzar'Sayeed'Khan!v!State'of'Maharashtra,!(2009)!12!S.C.C.!157!(India).!

Maqbool'Fida'Husain!v!Raj'Kumar'Pandey,'!(2008)!6!A.D.!(Delhi)!533!

N.'Veerabrahmam!v!State'of'Andhra'Pradesh,!A.I.R.!1959!A.P.!572!

Nand'Kishore'Singh'and'Anr.!v!State'of'Bihar'and'Anr.,!A.I.R.!1986!Pat.!98!

Narayan'Das'and'Anr.!v!State,'A.I.R.!1952!Ori.!149!

Pattamal!v!Chief'Presidency'Magistrate,'Egmore!A.I.R.!1951!Mad.!950!

Pravasi'Bhalai'Sangathan!v!Union'of'India,!Writ!Petition!(C)!No.!157!of!2013!(India).!

R.A.V.'v'City'of'St.'Paul,'Minn.,'505!U.S.!377!(1992)!

Ramesh!s/o'Chotalal'Dalal!v!Union'of'India,!A.I.R.!1988!S.C.!775!(India).!

Ramjilal'Modi!v!State'of'Uttar'Pradesh,!A.I.R.!1957!S.C.!620!(India).!

! 4!
Romesh'Thapar!v!State'of'Madras,!A.I.R.!1950!S.C.!124!(India)!

S.'Veerabadran'Chettiar!v!E.V.'Ramaswami'Naicker'&'Ors,!A.I.R.!1958!S.C.!1032!
(India).!

Saskatchewan''(Human'Rights'Commission)!v!Whatcott,![2013]!1!S.C.R.!467!(Can.)!

State'Of'Uttar'Pradesh!v!Lalai'Singh'Yadav,!A.I.R.!1977!S.C.!202!(India).,!(1976)!4!
S.C.C.!213!(India).!

Sujato'Bhadra!v!State'Of'West'Bengal,!(2006)!39!A.I.C.!239!

Ushaben'Navinchandra'Trivedi!v!Bhagyalakshmi'Chitramandir,!A.I.R.!1978!Guj.!13!

West'Virginia'State'Board'of'Education!v!Barnette,!319!U.S.!624!(1943)!

!!

! 5!
 I:!INTRODUCTION:1!

A.!The!Problem:!

Indian! free! speech! debates! have! been! framed! in! the! context! of! specific! social,!
cultural! and! political! developments! in! the! country! over! the! last! five! decades.! One!
approach!of!the!courts!has!been!to!recognize!the!importance!of!free!speech,!but!to!
limit! this! right! within! the! overarching! concern! of! public! safety! and! public! order.!!
The!Indian!constitutional!framework!supports!this!approach!of!the!court,!where!the!
freedom!of!speech!and!expression!provided!in!art.!19,!ξ!1,!cl.!a,2!is!circumscribed!by!
clear! exceptions3,! and! through! the! First! Amendment! to! the! Constitution! in! 1951,!
which! expanded! these! exceptions.4! ! However,! the! First! Amendment,! while!
expanding!the!scope!of!the!proviso!to!art.!19,!ξ!1,!cl.!a,!has!also!introduced!the!term!
‘reasonable!restrictions’,!thus!giving!the!judiciary!the!power!to!decided!what!speech!
is!acceptable,!and!what!is!not.!This!has!given!courts!the!power!to!redefine!the!scope!
of!free!speech.!A!second!strand!of!thought!that!has!emerged!through!court!decisions!
is!more!speech!protective,!with!a!focus!on!the!need!for!the!‘tolerance!of!intolerance’.!

A!concern!that!has!emerged!in!recent!years!has!been!the!recurring!claims!of!‘hurt!
sentiments’!of!communities!that!are!linked!to!the!threat!to!public!order.!Given!the!
history! of! communal! disturbances! in! the! country,! and! conflict! based! on! caste,!
religion,!ethnicity!and!language,!it!is!not!surprising!that!the!overwhelming!impulse!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!I!would!like!to!thank!Professor!Mark!Tushnet,!Professor!Richard!Fallon!and!Professor!Asad!Ahmed!
for! their! suggestions! in! the! initial! stages! of! the! paper.! I! would! also! like! to! acknowledge! Professor!
Mark!Tushnet,!Arun!K.!Thiruvengadam,!Hedayat!Heikal,!Arudra!Burra!and!Lawrence!Liang!for!their!
helpful!comments!on!the!draft!of!my!paper.!I!would!like!to!acknowledge!the!discussions!in!Professor!
Richard!Fallon’s!First!Amendment!Course,!offered!at!the!Harvard!Law!School!in!Spring!2014.!

2!INDIA!CONST .!art.!19,!ξ!1,!cl.!a:!“All!citizens!shall!have!the!right!to!freedom!of!speech!and!
expression”.!

3! INDIA!CONST.! art.!19,!ξ!2:!“Nothing!in!sub3clause!(a)!of!clause!(1)!shall!affect!the!operation!of!any!
existing! law,! in! so! far! as! such! law! imposes! reasonable! restrictions! on! the! exercise! of! the! right!
conferred!by!the!said!sub3clause!in!the!interests!of!the!sovereignty!and!integrity!of!India,!the!security!
of!the!State,!friendly!relations!with!foreign!States,!public!order,!decency!or!morality!or!in!relation!to!
contempt!of!court,!defamation!or!incitement!to!an!offence.!
4 !See'discussion!infra!Part!II.B.!

! 6!
and!response!of!the!government!has!been!to!regulate!speech!that!might!lead!to!hurt!
sentiments.! ! Courts! in! India! have! responded! to! this! issue! cautiously.! For! those!
advocating!for!a!more!liberal!legal!framework!the!deluge!of!legal!claims!around!hurt!
sentiments! has! become! a! troublesome! feature! of! the! manner! in! which! the! Indian!
law!has!worked!to!limit!speech.!!

Examples!of!groups!that!have!in!the!recent!past!made!these!claims!include!religious!
groups! (Hindus,! Muslims,! Christians),! intra3religious! groups! (Shias),! caste! groups!
(Lingayats,! Dalits),! occupation3based! groups,! which! have! strong! caste! associations!
(washer! men,! cobblers),! language! groups! (Oriya! speakers),! gender! based! groups,!
intersecting! with! language! (Tamil! women),! nationalist! based! claims! (Indians!
affected!because!Gandhi!was!disparaged).!!This!in!turn!has!led!to!references!to!India!
becoming!a!“Republic!of!Hurt!Sentiments”.5!!An!example!of!this!trend!is!the!public!
controversy! over! claims! that! American! academic! Wendy! Doniger’s! book,! The!
Hindus:! An! Alternative! History! had! hurt! the! sentiments! of! Hindus! by! sexualizing!
their!religion!and!misinterpreting!their!religious!texts.6!After!two3year!legal!battle!
Doniger’s!publishers,!Penguin!came!to!an!informal!agreement!with!the!petitioners!
Shiksha!Bachao!Andolan!Samiti,!an!organization!with!right3wing!leanings.!Penguin!
agreed! to! pulp! recalled,! unsold! and! withdrawn! copies! at! its! own! cost,! sparking!
international!widespread!outrage.7!

B.!Defining!Hate!Speech!

‘Hate! Speech’! is! a! term! that! is! increasingly! being! used! globally! but! has! different!
valences! nationally,! ranging! from! speech! that! targets! vulnerable! minorities,! to!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5! In! response! to! these! concerns,! the! English! Literary! Association,! Sri! Venkateswara! College,! Delhi!

University!organized!a!conference!titled!“The!State!of!Hurt:!Sentiments,!Politics,!Censorship”!in!New!
Delhi! in! October! 2012.! The! conference! brought! together! historians,! social! scientists,! lawyers! and!
activists.!
6!Penguin'India'to'Destroy'Doniger’s'Controversial'Book'‘The'Hindus:'An'Alternative'History’,!SAMAY!
LIVE,!Feb.!12,!2014,!at!http://global.factiva.com.ezp3prod1.hul.harvard.edu/ha/default.aspx,!
Document!!ATSAML00201402102EA2c0000c.!
7!Id.!

! 7!
speech! that! incites! racial! and! religious! violence,! and! speech! that! amounts! to!
‘defamation!of!religion’.8!!!

At!the!conceptual!level,!hate!speech!can!be!broadly!divided!into!two!categories:!1)!
Speech!that!can!incite!violence!i.e.!A!speaks!to!B,!and!B!incited!by!A’s!speech!then!
commits! an! act! of! violence,! or! harm! 2)! Speech! that! directly! causes! harm! i.e.! A!
speaks! to! B,! and! B! is! hurt! or! emotionally! distressed! or! impacted! adversely! by! the!
speech.!

In! this! paper! I! will! focus! on! the! second! i.e.! speech! that! is! criminalized! for! directly!
causing! hurt! or! emotional! distress.! In! the! Indian! context,! these! claims! of! hurt!
sentiment! are! both! individual! and! group! based! claims,! and! are! based! on! a! wide!
variety!of!social!groups,!identities!and!classes.!However!the!two!cannot!be!strictly!
separated! as! many! of! the! claims! made! by! individuals! are! based! on! their!
membership! of! a! larger! community.! These! claims! fall! under! the! following! broad!
categories!of!Indian!law.9!

C.!Substantive!Criminal!Law!Provisions:!

Hate! speech! provisions! in! the! criminal! law! are! derived! from! the! English! common!
law!principles!of!seditious!and!blasphemous!libel.!Colonial!administrators!brought!
these!principles!into!the!criminal!law!through!specific!provisions!that!were!aimed!
at! assuaging! what! they! perceived! to! be! the! peculiar! religious! sentiments! and!
vulnerability!to!insult!and!offence!of!the!Indian!population.10!Blasphemous!libel!was!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8!Joint! Statement! Githu! Muigai,! Special! Rapporteur! on! Contemporary! Forms! of! Racism,! Racial!
Discrimination,!Xenophobia!and!Related!Intolerance,!Asma!Jahangir,!Special!Rapporteur!on!Freedom!
of!Religion!or!Belief,!and!Frank!La!Rue,!Special!Rapporteur!on!the!Promotion!and!Protection!of!the!
Right! to! Freedom! of! Opinion! and! Expression,! Freedom! of! Expression! and! Incitement! to! Racial! or!
Religious!Hatred,!United!Nations!Office!of!the!High!Commissioner!for!Human!Rights!(OHCHR)!side!
event,! Durban! Review! Conference,! Geneva! (Apr.! 22,! 2009).!
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/docs/SRJointstatement22April09.pdf.! Defamation!
of!Religion!is!a!term!that!is!used!in!United!Nations!Resolutions!aimed!to!limit!freedom!of!expression!
in!order!to!protect!religion!against!what!its!supporters!see!as!a!campaign!of!negative!stereotyping!of!
religion!by!Western!countries.!
9!In!doing!this!mapping!exercise!I!have!drawn!upon!the!Supreme!Court’s!observations!in!a!2014!

decision,!Pravasi!Bhalai!Sangathan!v!Union!of!India,!Writ!Petition!(C!)!No.!157!of!2013!(Mar.!12,!
2014)!(Judgment!Information!System,!Supreme!Court!official!website).!
10 !FRANCIS!LUDLOW!HOLT,!LAW!OF!LIBEL,!(Butterworth!and!Sons!1816),!London,!2nd!Ed.!(1816).!

! 8!
seen!to!deal!with!material!that!affected!the!foundations!of!the!Christian!religion,!the!
truth! of! the! Holy! Scriptures,! and! the! acknowledged! sacraments! of! the! Church.11!
They! were! targeted! at! blasphemous! material! that! was! seen! to! be! subverting! all!
religion! and! morality,! which! were! foundations! of! the! government.12! Libels! that!
tended!to!promote!insurrection,!and!circulate!discontent!through!its!members!were!
termed!as!seditious!libel.13!!

Hate! speech! provisions! have! been! distributed! over! three! different! Chapters! of! the!
Code3! “Of! Offences! Relating! to! Religion”,! “Of! Offences! Against! the! Public!
Tranquillity”! and! “Of! Criminal! Intimidation,! Insult! and! Annoyance”.! This! indicates!
that!these!were!never!meant!to!be!one!category!of!speech!in!the!way!we!understand!
them!to!be.!There!were!overlapping!concerns!of!governing!the!relationship!between!
different!religions,!public!order!and!hurt!sentiment.!!

The! underlying! theme! of! the! provisions! in! the! chapter! on! “Of! Offences! Relating! to!
Religion”! is! Macaulay’s! belief! that! Indians! were! especially! susceptible! to! religious!
excitement.! The! First! Indian! Law! Commission! drafting! the! Penal! Code! (which!
Macaulay!headed)!elaborated!on!this!in!Note!J!in!the!version!of!the!Code!presented!
before!the!Governor!General!of!India!in!Council!in!1835,!which!formed!the!basis!for!
the!1860!legislation.!“…There!is!perhaps!no!country!in!which!the!Government!has!
so!much!to!apprehend!from!religious!excitement!among!the!people..”14!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11!Id.' !
12!Id. !
13 !Id.!
14! This! perception! is! exemplified! by! this! statement! in! Note! J! of! the! First! Indian! Law! Commission’s!
Penal!Code!that!was!presented!before!the!Governor!General!of!India!in!Council!in!1835!and!formed!
the!basis!for!the!1860!legislation!light!on!Macaulay’s!thinking!on!this!subject.!“…There'is'perhaps'no'
country' in' which' the' Government' has' so' much' to' apprehend' from' religious' excitement' among' the'
people..”'See!INDIAN!LAW!COMMISSIONERS,!A!PENAL!CODE!PUBLISHED!BY!COMMAND!OF!THE!GOVERNOR!GENERAL!
IN! COUNCIL,! 102! (2002).! Asad! Ali! Ahmed,! in! his! work! on! blasphemy! law! in! colonial! India! describes!
this! as! a! strategy! that! “enabled! the! colonial! state! to! assume! the! role! of! the! rational! and! neutral!
arbiter!of!supposedly!endemic!and!inevitable!religious!conflicts!between!what!it!presumed!were!its!
religiously! and! emotionally! excitable! subjects.”! Asad! Ali! Ahmed,! Specters' of' Macaulay:' Blasphemy,'
the'Indian'Penal'Code,'and'Pakistan’s'Postcolonial'Predicament,'in!CENSORSHIP!IN! SOUTH! ASIA:!CULTURAL!
REGULATION! FROM! SEDITION! TO! SEDUCTION! 1723205,! 173! (William! Mazzarella! &! Raminder! Kaur,! eds.,!
2009).!!

! 9!
Another! theme! that! runs! through! these! provisions! is! link! between! hurt! sentiment!
and! public! disorder.! This! concern! is! rooted! in! a! case! that! became! a! public!
controversy! in! the! 1920s,! dealing! with! a! pamphlet! called! Rangeela! Rasool! (The!
Colorful! Prophet)! that! became! hugely! controversial.! The! Lahore! High! Court!
overturned! a! trial! court! decision! that! convicted! the! publisher! of! hate! speech.! This!
led! to! widespread! protests! and! public! mobilization! by! the! Muslim! community! in!
Lahore.!This!in!turn!led!to!the!Punjab!legislative!assembly!enacting!ξ!295A!that!was!
specifically! targeted! at! curbing! speech! that! were! intended! to! outrage! religious!
feelings!by!insulting!religion!or!religious!beliefs.15!

Macaulay’s! views! were! also! influenced! by! the! debates! on! religious! freedom! that!
were!ongoing!in!England.!In!a!parliamentary!speech!advocating!the!removal!of!civil!
disabilities!against!the!Jewish!community!in!England,!Macaulay!opposed!England’s!
existing!blasphemy!laws,!and!specified!the!principle!on!which!he!would!frame!such!
a!law.!This!principle,!that!everyone!should!be!at!liberty!to!discuss!religion,!but!not!
so!as!to!cause!pain,!disgust,!or!outrage!and!thereby!infringe!on!the!rights!of!others,!
is!reflected!in!the!Penal!Code.!16!!

In! the! Penal! Code,! there! is! a! string! of! sections! attempt! to! ensure! that! religious!
sentiments!and!hurt!and!protected!by!law.!The!most!important!of!these!are!ξ!153A,!
ξ!153B,!ξ!295A,!ξ!298,!and!ξ!505(2)!of!the!Penal!Code!and!ξ!95,!ξ!107,!ξ!144,!ξ!151,!
and! ξ! 160! of! the! Code! of! Criminal! Procedure.! These! provisions! constitute! the!
substantive!and!procedural!law!dealing!with!hate!speech.!

Often,!these!sections!are!slapped!together!on!those!charged!with!hurt!sentiment!in!
various!combinations!and!permutations!depending!on!the!facts!of!the!case.!Of!these!
provisions! the! most! important! clauses,! which! are! the! ones! that! are! most! invoked!
and!therefore!synonymous!with!these!claims!are!ξ!153A!and!ξ!295A.!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15
For a recent account of the legislative debates leading to the enactment of ξ 295A See Neeti Nair,
Beyond the ‘Communal’ 1920s: The Problem of Intention, Communal Pragmatism, and the Making of
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 50 INDIAN ECONOMIC SOCIAL HISTORY REVIEW, 317 (2013) at
http://ier.sagepub.com/content/50/3/317, DOI: 10.1177/0019464613494622.
16!THE!LETTERS!OF!THOMAS!BABINGTON!MACAULAY,!(Thomas!Pinney!(ed.),!1974)!43344,!in!CENSORSHIP!IN!

SOUTH!ASIA:!CULTURAL!REGULATION!FROM!SEDITION!TO!SEDUCTION,!supra!note!14!at!180.!

! 10!
The!table!below!is!a!comparison!of!the!various!provisions!that!are!the!focus!of!this!
paper,!and!include!details!related!to!the!procedural!distinctions!involved:!

IPC! !ξ!298! !ξ!505! !ξ!153(A)! !ξ!295(A)! !ξ!505(2)! !ξ!153(B)!

section!

Chapter! Of! Of! Of! Of! Of! Of!

in!IPC! Offences! Criminal! Offences! Offences! Criminal! Offences!
Relating! Intimidati against! Relating! Intimidati against!
to! on,! Insult! the! Public! to! on,! Insult! the! Public!
Religion! and! Tranquilit Religion! and! Tranquilit
Annoyanc y! Annoyanc y!
e! e!

Year! of! 1861! 1861,! 1898! 1927,! 1969! 1972!

enactm (was! amended! (separate amended!
ent,! ξ282! in! in!1898! d! from! in!1961!
amend Draft! sec!
ment! Penal! ξ124A),!
Code)! amended!
in! 1961,!
1969,!
1972!

Wordin Uttering! Statement Promotin Deliberat Statement Imputatio

g! of! words! etc! s! g! enmity! e! and! s! creating! ns,!
section! with! conducing! between! malicious! or! assertions!
deliberate! to! public! different! acts! promotin prejudicia
intent! to! mischief! groups! on! intended! g! hatred! l! to!
wound! grounds! to!outrage! enmity! or! national!
religious! of! religious! ill! will! integratio
feelings! religion,! feelings!of! between! n!
race,! any! class! classes!
! place! of! by! !
birth,! insulting! !
!
residence,! its!
language! religion!
etc! or!
religious!
(Explanat beliefs!
ion!
dropped! !
in!1961)!!

Gravity! Non! Non! Cognizabl Cognizabl Cognizabl Cognizabl

of! Cognizabl cognizable e,! non! e,! non! e,! non! e,! non!
offence! e,! ,! non! bailable,! bailable,! bailable,! bailable,!
bailable,! bailable,! non! non! non! non!
compoun non3 compoun compoun compoun compoun
dable! by! compoun

! 11!
 the! dable,! dable! dable! dable! dable!
person! triable! by!
whose! any! Punishme Punishme Punishme Punishme
religious! Magistrat nt! may! nt! may! nt! may! nt! may!
feelings! e! extend! up! extend! up! extend! up! extend! up!
were! to! 3! years! to! 3! years! to! 3! years! to! 3! years!
intended! imprison imprison imprison imprison
to! be! ment! ment! ment! ment!
wounded.!! Triable!by! Triable!by! Triable!by! Punishme
Punishme Magistrat Magistrat any! nt! may!
nt! may! e! of! First! e! of! First! Magistrat extend! up!
extend! up! Class! Class! e! to! 5! years!
to! one! in! cases!
year! where!
imprison offence! is!
ment! committe
d! in! a!
Triable!by! place! of!
any! worship!
Magistrat or! in! an!
e! assembly!
engaged!
! in! the!
performa
nce! of!
religious!
worship!
or!
religious!
ceremoni
es!

Triable!by!
Magistrat
e! of! First!
Class!

ξ! 153A! and! ξ! 295A! are! very! closely! related.! ξ! 295A! was! enacted! by! the! colonial!
government! in! the! 1920s! specifically! to! address! a! situation! when! it! was! felt! that!
there!was!a!gap!in!what!ξ!153A!covered.!!This!gap!was!related!to!speech!that!hurt!
religious! belief! by! targeting! religious! icons! or! leaders! without! promoting! enmity!
between! two! groups.! ξ! 153A! is! a! broader! section! that! criminalized! “promoting!
enmity!between!different!groups”.!These!groups!are!not!limited!to!religious!groups!
and! the! categories! are! kept! open! ended.! While! ξ! 153A! deals! with! “promoting!

! 12!
enmity”! between! different! groups,! ξ! 295A! deals! with! “outraging! the! religious!
feelings”!of!a!religious!group.!ξ!295A!does!not!have!to!involve!two!groups.!!

D.!Special!Legislation!Related!to!Caste!Atrocities:!!

There! are! other! areas! of! specialized! legislation! where! the! hate! speech! including!
hurt! sentiment! is! criminalized.! These! include! legislation! aimed! at! protecting!
Scheduled!Castes!and!Tribes!including!ξ!!7!of!the!Protection!of!Civil!Rights!Act,!1955!
and!ξ!!3!of!the!Scheduled!Tribes!Prevention!of!Atrocities!Act,!1989,!and!specialized!
anti3terror! legislation! including! ξ! ! 2(f),! ξ! 10,! ξ! 11,! ξ! 12! of! the! Unlawful! Activities!
(Prevention)! Act! 1967.! ! Although! I! will! not! discuss! these! provisions! in! this! paper,!
they! are! directly! connected! to! the! idea! of! ‘hurt! sentiments’.! The! rationale! behind!
these!laws!is!based!on!preventing!the!perpetuation!of!degrading!social!hierarchies!
and!their!intent!is!more!on!the!lines!of!modern!hate!speech!legislation!that!aims!to!
protect! vulnerable! minorities.! The! assumption! underlying! these! laws! is! that!
individuals! will! not! be! able! to! live! a! life! with! dignity! if! they! are! subject! to! hate!
speech.!

E.!Election!Law:!!

ξ! 123! and! ξ! 125! of! the! Representation! of! People! Act,! 1951! govern! hate! speech!
related!to!elections.!There!is!a!substantial!body!of!cases!that!deal!with!restrictions!
on!speech!during!election!campaigns!and!by!politicians!elected!to!office.!One!could!
interpret! the! rationale! behind! this! law! in! Rawlsian! terms! in! the! sense! that! it! is!
legitimate! for! the! state! to! exclude! appeals! to! religion! from! politics! since! public!
reason! requires! individuals! to! give! up! appeals! to! their! own! comprehensive!
doctrines.17!I!will!not!focus!on!election!law!on!this!paper,!except!references!to!the!
law! to! indicate! larger! developments! around! hate! speech! in! particular! periods! of!
time.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17!Pratap!Bhanu!Mehta,!Passion!and!Constraint:!Courts!and!the!Regulation!of!Religious!Meaning,'in!

POLITICS!AND!ETHICS!OF!THE!INDIAN!CONSTITUTION,!3113353,!311!(Rajeev!Bhargava,!ed.!1998).!!!

! 13!
!

F.!Media!Laws:!!

With!the!rapid!evolution!of!media!technology,!there!are!specialized!legislation!and!
rules!dealing!with!media!technologies.!Many!of!these!have!hate!speech!laws.!These!
include!ξ!66A,!ξ!69,!and!ξ!69A!the!Information!Technology!Act,!2000,!Rule!3(2)(b),!
Rule!3(2)(i)!of!the!Information!Technology!(Intermediaries!guidelines)!Rules,!2011,!
ξ! 5,! ξ! 6,! ξ! 11,! ξ! 12,! ξ! 16,! ξ! 17,! ξ! 19,! and! ξ! 20! of! The! Cable! Television! Networks!
Regulation)!Act,!1995,!Rules!6!and!7!of!The!Cable!Television!Network!(Rules),!1994!
and! ξ! 4,! ξ! 5B,! and! ξ! 7! of! The! Cinematograph! Act,! 1952.! The! definitions! of! hate!
speech! in! these! laws! are! based! on! substantive! criminal! law! although! these! are!
sometimes!tweaked!depending!on!what!technology!is!being!regulated.!For!instance!
the! hate! speech! provisions! in! the! Information! Technology! Act! and! Rules! include!
categories!like!‘blasphemy’!and!speech!that!is!‘grossly!offensive’!which!were!never!
in!the!criminal!law!or!mentioned!in!the!constitution.18!!

G.!Research!Methodology,!Limitations!and!Structure:!

This!paper!is!based!entirely!on!legal!doctrine,!which!I!have!gleaned!from!case!law!
from! the! 1950s! to! the! present.! I! have! used! a! case! analysis! method! citing! extracts!
from!cases!when!needed,!but!otherwise!paraphrasing!the!contents!of!cases.!I!have!
examined! Supreme! Court! and! High! Court! cases! from! India! over! five! and! half!
decades.! I! have! relied! on! secondary! legal! material! and! material! from! other!
disciplined!to!make!sense!of!these!cases!and!the!larger!debates!around!hate!speech!
law.! I! have! also! relied! on! historical! material! including! texts! on! the! Constitutional!
Assembly!Debates,!the!First!and!Sixteenth!Amendments!to!the!Constitution.!

I! have! not! looked! at! trial! court! decisions! since! trial! court! cases! are! not! easily!
available!and!because!of!the!limitations!of!time.!Since!this!paper!has!a!very!specific!
focus,!I!will!not!be!looking!at!comparative!law,!international!law!and!principles,!UN!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!See'Generally!Shivam!Vij,!Gag!Reflex:!Lessons!in!How!Not!to!Deal!with!Online!Hate!Speech,!CARAVAN!
18

MAGAZINE,!(Oct.!1,!2012),!available!at!http://www.caravanmagazine.in/perspectives/gag3reflex.!

! 14!
Treaty! Bodies! or! reports! of! UN! Special! Rapporteurs.! These! remain! topics! for!
another! day.! Further,! I! have! limited! my! focus! to! substantive! and! procedural!
criminal! law! on! hate! speech,! and! not! to! special! legislation,! election! law,! or! media!
laws.!!

Although!this!paper!draws!on!material!from!the!colonial!period,!it!does!not!focus!on!
doctrinal!developments!in!the!law!during!colonial!India.!I!have!limited!this!paper!to!
doctrine!post!Independence!so!that!the!scope!of!the!project!is!manageable.!!

The! paper! is! divided! into! five! parts! or! sections.! ! The! first! part! is! the! Introduction!
that! lays! out! the! scope! of! this! paper,! and! the! research! methodology! used.! The!
second!part!deals!with!key!moments!in!the!doctrinal!history!and!debates!over!hate!
speech! 3! the! Constitutional! Assembly! debates,! the! First! Amendment,! and! the!
Sixteenth! Amendment.! The! third! part! covers! more! recent! developments! 3! the!
Nineties,!and!the!Contemporary!Moment.!The!fourth!part!examines!the!overarching!
doctrinal! principles! that! emerge! in! India! and! the! philosophical! underpinnings! of!
hate!speech!law.!In!the!fifth!and!final!part,!I!conclude!with!some!broad!observations,!
suggesting! an! approach! that! will! strike! a! balance! between! the! interest! of! free!
speech!and!the!concern!of!the!harm!in!hate!speech.!I!have!included!a!Table!of!Cases!
at!the!beginning!of!the!paper,!before!Part!I!and!a!Bibliography!right!at!the!end,!after!
Part!V.!!

! 15!
 II.!HISTORICAL!DEVELOPMENTS:!

A.!CONSTITUTIONAL!ASSEMBLY!DEBATES:!

The! framing! and! language! of! hate! speech! law! has! its! origins! in! late! 19th! century!
colonial! rule,! shaped! by! the! view! that! colonial! subjects! are! vulnerable! to! religious!
sentiments.!In!the!mid!20th!century,!as!colonial!rule!came!to!an!end!Indians!began!to!
debate! the! framing! of! the! Constitution.! This! process! of! deliberation! by! a!
Constitutional! Assembly! of! over! 300! elected! representatives! began! in! 1946,! a! few!
months! before! Indian! independence,! and! went! on! for! three! years.19! These!
deliberations! took! place! in! a! broader! atmosphere! of! rising! communal! tensions,!
horrific!violence!and!large3scale!migration!leading!up!to!the!partition!of!the!country,!
and! the! birth! of! two! countries,! India! and! Pakistan,! in! 1947.! ! The! Constitutional!
Assembly!debates!are!important!since!they!happened!in!a!period!that!is!not!that!far!
from! the! present! day,! whose! conceptions,! ideals! and! values! are! still! relevant!
today.20!

The! proceedings! of! the! Fundamental! Rights! Subcommittee! of! the! Constitutional!
Assembly!provide!significant!insights!into!the!strong!opinions!for!and!against!hate!
speech! provisions! in! the! criminal! law.! Legal! academic! Arun! Thiruvengadam,! has!
termed! this! as! being! motivated! by! the! tension! between! universalist! and!
particularist!concerns!in!the!drafting!process.21!Thiruvengadam!argues!the!framing!
of!the!free!speech!clause!(draft!Article!13!which!becomes!Article!19),!is!influenced!
by! the! shift! from! universal! ideas! of! free! speech! that! Indian! nationalists! relied! on!
during! the! struggle! against! colonialism,! to! a! particularist! language! influenced! by!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!Arun!K.!Thiruvengadam,!The!Interplay!of!the!Universal!and!the!Particular!in!the!Evolution!of!the!
19

Constitutional!Right!to!Free!Speech!in!India:180031950!(Feb.!23,!2012)!(unpublished!manuscript,!
available!with!author)(manuscript!at!18).!!!
20!POLITICS!AND!ETHICS!OF!THE!INDIAN!CONSTITUTION,!12!(Rajeev!Bhargava!ed.,!2008).! !
21!Id.' !

! 16!
momentous! events! of! that! time! in! the! subcontinent3! Partition,! mass! violence,!
migration,!the!influx!of!refugees!and!threats!to!public!order!and!safety.22!

Political! theorist! Rajeev! Bhargava! outlines! the! five! most! important! visions! that!
dominated! the! discussions! in! the! Constitutional! Assembly! –! 1)! Nehru’s! social!
democratic! vision! 2)! Ambedkar’s! liberal! democratic! vision,! closely! related! to!
Nehru’s! vision! 3)! Gandhi’s! non! modernist,! quasi! communitarian! vision! 4)! the!
radically!egalitarian!vision!represented!by!members!like!K.T.!Shah!5)!the!Hindutva!
or! Hindu! right! wing! vision.23! The! framers! of! the! Constitution! reinforced! and!
reinvented!forms!of!liberal!individualism!but!inflected!with!communitarian!values!
that!were!not!always!compatible!with!individual!autonomy.24!

One! of! the! most! important! subcommittee! set! up! for! this! process! was! the!
Fundamental! Rights! Subcommittee! chaired! by! J.B.! Kriplani.! It! was! this!
Subcommittee! that! discussed! the! provisions! related! to! the! freedom! of! speech! and!
expression!and!gave!shape!to!draft!art.!13,!now!art.!19,!which!includes!the!right!to!
freedom! of! speech! and! expression.! The! baseline! for! the! discussion! on! the! free!
speech! clause! was! the! Karachi! Resolution! of! the! Indian! National! Congress! as! per!
which! the! right! of! free! speech! was! limited! by! provisos! that! dealt! with! the!
contravention!of!law!or!morality.25!!

The! debates! in! the! Fundamental! Rights! Subcommittee! centered! on! whether! the!
proviso!to!the!fundamental!right!to!freedom!of!speech!and!expression!should!cover!
speech! that! is! ‘likely! to! promote! class! hatred’.26! The! discussion! formed! part! of! a!
larger! debate! on! the! wording! of! ‘public! order! or! morality’! in! the! proviso! that! was!
suggested! by! Congress! leader! C.! Rajagopalachari.! These! debates! show! how!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
22 !Id.!
23!Id'at!7. !
24 !Id!at!9.!
25!Resolution!on!Fundamental!Rights!and!Economic!and!Social!Change,!Indian!National!Congress!
Session,!Karachi,!(1931)!in!GRANVILLE!AUSTIN,!THE!INDIAN!CONSTITUTION:!CORNERSTONE!OF!A!NATION,!69!
(1966).!

!Those!who!spoke!during!the!discussion!in!the!Committee!on!hate!speech!were!K.M.!Panikkar,!
26

Alladi!Krishnaswami!Iyer,!Syama!Prasad!Mookherjee,!K.M.!Munshi,!the!chairperson!J.B.!Kriplani,!C.!
Rajagopalachari!and!H.C.!Mookherjee!and!Thakur!Das!Bhargava.!

! 17!
members! of! the! Sub! Committee! were! acutely! aware! of! the! draconian! nature! of!
ξ153A!of!the!Penal!Code!and!its!deadly!potential!to!curb!speech.!!

The! arguments! against! including! hate! speech! in! the! proviso! to! the! free! speech!
clause! relied! on! the! Democracy! and! Distrust! viewpoint.27! Vice! President! of! the!
Hindu! Mahasabha! and! member! of! Nehru’s! Cabinet,! Syama! Prasad! Mookerjee,!
argued!that!it!would!be!dangerous!to!include!the!terms!‘class!or!communal!hatred’!
since!to!do!so!would!be!to!cut!both!ways.!He!said!

“..'Even'simple'expression'of'opinion'against'a'party'in'power'may'be'construed'
as'class'or'communal'hatred'and'punished'accordingly;'but'if'the'majority'party'
or'the'party'in'power'does'the'same'thing,'they'will'not'be'brought'to'book.”28'

K.!M.!Munshi,!lawyer!and!estranged!Congressman,!added!to!this!!

“The' right' of' free' expression' is' now' recognized' all' over' the' world,' and' it' has'
been'felt'that'speeches'or'writings'tending'towards'communal'or'class'hatred,'if'
they' do' not' go' to' the' extent' of' causing' violence' or' crime,' should' be' permitted.'
This' is' the' case' in' all' civilized' countries.' The' reason' why' ‘class' or' communal'
hatred’' was' that' it' was' felt' that' it' might' permit' the' units' to' make' all' kinds' of'
drastic'laws;'and'all'constitutional'experts'are'of'the'view'that'up'to'the'point'
where' it' leads' to' a' breach' of' peace' or' public' order,' any' amount' of' public'
expression'should'be'permitted.”29''

Former!Chief!Justice!of!the!Lahore!High!Court!Bakshi!Tek!Chand!intervened!with!a!
passionate! plea! not! to! include! hate! speech! in! the! proposed! clause.! In! a! classic!
Democracy! and! Distrust! mode,! he! argued! that! the! colonial! experience! had! shown!
that!such!a!provision!would!be!used!to!clamp!down!on!dissent.!

“I'think'the'clause'as'it'stands'should'not'be'amended.'My'experience'shows'that'
there'is'no'section'in'the'whole'Indian'Penal'Code,'which'has'been'more'abused'
by'the'government'of'the'time'than'section'153(a).'As'you'know,'no'action'under'
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
27 !See!infra!pp.!36337.!!
28 !Id.!
29!Id. !

! 18!
 section'153(a)'can'be'taken'unless'sanction'is'obtained'from'the'executive.'Now,'
when'the'bureaucratic'government'was'there,'sanction'was'given'to'prosecute'a'
certain' newspaper' simply' because' it' write' articles' against' the' police.' It' was'
argued' and' held' that' the' police' force' was' a' class' by' itself' and' that' the'
newspaper' was' creating' hatred' against' the' police.' The' man' concerned' was'
sentenced' to' two' year’s' imprisonment.' This' is' about' the' class' part' of' it.' Again,'
when'members'of'the'majority'committee'write'against'the'minorities'whether'
they' are' Hindu' or' Muslim,' no' sanction' is' given.' When' the' minorities' write'
against'the'majority,'sanction'is'given.'So,'I'say'that,'as'Dr.'Ambedkar'said,'this'
should'be'limited'only'to'occasions'when'there'is'grave'danger'to'public'order.'I'
think'the'clause'as'drafted'should'stand.”30'''

H.!C.!Mookherjee!added!his!experience!to!this!plea!

“We' started' a' certain' periodical' in' Bengal.' As' soon' as' the' first' issue' came' out,'
unofficial'warning'was'given'to'us'that'unless'we'stopped,'action'would'be'taken'
under' section' 153A.' We' had' to' stop' it.' So,' I' am' afraid' that,' so' far' as' we' are'
concerned,'we'do'not'feel'quite'safe,'if'we'had'a'provision'of'that'sort.”31'

The! opposing! particularist! view,! which! relied! on! the! event! surrounding! Partition!
and! the! threat! to! public! order! was! articulated! by! Congress! member! C.!
Rajagopalachari,! He! argued! that! the! fundamental! peace! and! orderly! progress! of!
India! depended! upon! communal! peace! and! harmony.! He! warned! that! if! the!
Assembly! members! did! not! prevent! speeches! and! utterances! likely! to! foster!
communal!hatred,!they!could!not!have!progress.32!

Thus! there! were! polarizing! views! on! this! subject,! advocates! for! regulating! hate!
speech! were! strongly! inclined! towards! distrust! of! enhancing! government! power,!
and! those! for! regulating! hate! speech,! who! felt! it! was! needed! given! the! specific!
situation! and! threats! to! public! order! in! India! at! the! time,! and! a! belief! that! the!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
30 !Id.!
31 !Id.!
32 !Id.!

! 19!
executive!would!not!misuse!its!power!as!it!was!under!democratic!oversight.33!Given!
the! strong! conflicting! opinions! on! this! proposal,! the! decision! on! this! matter! was!
postponed! and! eventually! the! term! ‘class! hatred! or! communal! hatred’! was! not!
specifically! included! as! an! exception! to! the! right! to! freedom! of! speech! and!
expression.!!

Granville!Austin,!remarking!on!the!debates!around!the!scope!of!the!right!to!freedom!
in! the! Constitutional! Assembly,! remarks! that! the! general! feeling! in! the! Assembly!
was! the! provisos! suggested! by! the! Fundamental! Rights! Sub! Committee!
circumscribed!the!right!to!freedom!to!such!an!extent,!that!the!rights!had!lost!their!
meaning.34! In! response! to! this,! on! 29! April! 1947,! despite! the! atmosphere! of! panic!
and!fear!in!the!city!of!Delhi,!the!members!of!the!Congress!Assembly!Party!resolved!
to! omit! all! provisos! except! ‘public! order,! morality! and! grave! emergency’.! 35! The!
Drafting! Committee! in! 1947! expanded! the! provisos! to! include! ‘public! order,!
morality,!health,!decency,!and!public!interest’.!Additionally,!the!Drafting!Committee!
also! included! in! the! proviso! to! the! freedom! of! speech! and! expression! that! ‘the!
utterance! must! not! be! seditious,! slanderous,! or! undermine! the! authority! of! the!
state’.!36!!

Members! of! the! Constitutional! Assembly! attacked! this! version! of! the! draft! in! the!
autumn! of! 1948.! In! response,! The! Chairperson! of! the! Constitutional! Assembly,! Dr.!
Ambedkar,!defended!these!provisions.!He!said,!!

“In' support' of' every' exception' to' the' Fundamental' Rights' set' out' in' the' Draft'
Constitution,' one' can' refer' to' at' least' one' judgment' of' the' U.S.' Supreme' Court.'
The' purpose' of' the' proviso' was' to' prevent' endless' litigation' and' the' Supreme'
Court'having'to'rescue'Parliament.”37'

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
33!Arudra!Burra,!Parliament'and'the'First'Amendment'in'India:'The'Constitution'(First'Amendment'

Act),'1951,!8!(Dec.!2008),!http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2052659.!
34 !Austin,'supra!note!25!at!72.!
35!Id. !
36 !Id!at!73.!
37'Id.!

! 20!
In!order!to!break!this!impasse,!Member!of!the!Assembly!from!East!Punjab!Thakur!
Das!Bhargava!suggested!that!the!term!‘reasonable’!be!introduced!in!Article!13!(now!
Art!19)!to!qualify!these!restrictions!and!to!put!the!soul!back!into!the!provision.!The!
term! ‘reasonable’! gave! the! courts! power! to! decide! on! legislative! efforts! to! curb!
freedom,!thus!placing!Indian!courts!on!par!with!American!judges!who!exercised!this!
power!through!the!due!process!clause.! 38!The!term!‘sedition’!was!dropped!from!the!
proviso! and! the! term! ‘overthrow! of! the! state’! was! introduced.39! The! version! of!
Article!19!(1)!(a),!which!guaranteed!the!right!to!freedom!of!speech!and!expression!
adopted!by!the!Constitutional!Assembly!in!November!1949!read!

19.!(1)!All!citizens!shall!have!the!right!333!!

(a)!to!freedom!of!speech!and!expression;!...!!

(2)!Nothing!in!sub3clause!(a)!of!clause!(1)!shall!affect!the!operation!of!any!existing!
law!in!so!far!as!it!relates!to,!or!prevent!the!State!from!making!any!law!relating!to,!
libel,! slander,! defamation,! contempt! of! Court! or! any! matter! which! offends! against!
decency!or!morality!or!which!undermines!the!security!of,!or!tends!to!overthrow,!the!
State.!!

Through! an! unexplained! oversight,! the! term! ‘reasonable’! was! omitted! from! the!
proviso! to! the! freedom! of! speech! and! expression.! This! omission! was! corrected!
when!the!First!Amendment!was!passed.40!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
38 !Id'at!73374.!See'Also!H.V.!HANDE,!AMBEDKAR!AND!THE!MAKING!OF!THE!INDIAN!CONSTITUTION,!69!(2009).!
39 !Id'at!74.!
40 !Id.!

! 21!
B.!THE!FIRST!AMENDMENT!AND!AFTER:!

The! divisions! between! universalist! and! particularist! concerns! around! the! right! to!
free! speech! became! much! sharper! in! the! debates! around! the! First! Amendment! to!
the!Indian!Constitution.41!!Prime!Minister!Jawaharlal!Nehru’s!government,!spurred!
by!judicial!decisions!that!were!seen!to!be!anti3government!and!by!the!power!of!the!
‘yellow!press’,!introduced!changes!to!art.!19!ξ1,!cl.!a,!in!the!First!Amendment!!

The! first! of! these! decisions! was! Romesh' Thapar42,' in! which' the! Supreme! Court!
struck!down!section!9!of!the!Madras!Maintenance!of!Public!Order!Act!1949,!saying!
the! restriction! on! ‘public! order’! was! unconstitutional,! and! not! supported! by! the!
term! ‘security! of! the! state’! in! art.! 19! ξ2.! This! law! was! used! to! proscribe! a!
Communist!magazine!Crossroads.!In!this!case,!the!Supreme!Court!specifically!stated!
that!in!the!absence!of!the!term!‘public!order’!in!art.!19!ξ2,!the!court!could!not!read!
public!order!into!the!provision!on!the!basis!of!the!doctrine!of!implied!powers.43!!

In!Brij'Bhushan44!the!Court!invalidated!ξ7!of!the!East!Punjab!Public!Safety!Act,!1949,!
that!was!used!to!proscribe!the!RSS!mouthpiece!Organiser.!The!Court!held!that!the!
state!could!not!restrict!freedom!of!speech!and!expression!for!the!purpose!of!public!
safety! and! maintenance! of! public! order.! In! Pattamal45! the! Madras! High! Court!
invalidated!ξ3!of!the!Press!Emergency!Act!on!similar!grounds.!46!

The! wording! of! the! changes! were! deliberated! in! a! Select! Committee,! where! a!
number! of! persons! warned! that! the! changes! would! bring! in! unreasonable!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
41! For!a!reading!of!the!First!Amendment!in!the!light!of!the!other!parts!of!the!amendment!related!to!
affirmative! action! and! the! right! to! property,! see! Nivedita! Menon,! Citizenship! and! the! Passive!
Revolution,!in!POLITICS!AND!ETHICS!OF!THE!INDIAN!CONSTITUTION!189!(Rajeev!Bhargava,!ed.!2008).!Menon!
argues!that!in!these!debates!it!is!difficult!to!locate!the!fault!lines!clearly!across!liberal/anti3liberal,!
secular/communal!or!democratic/anti3democratic!lines!!!
42 !Romesh!Thapar!v!State!of!Madras,!A.I.R.!1950!S.C.!124!(India).!
43! Legal!scholar!Charles!Henry!Alexandrowicz!observes!that!the!doctrine!of!implied!powers!has!no!
place! in! Indian! constitutional! law! since,! under! the! constitutional! scheme,! the! Indian! state! has!
express!police!powers!to!restrict!fundamental!rights.!CHARLES! HENRY! ALEXANDROWICZ,! CONSTITUTIONAL!
DEVELOPMENTS!IN!INDIA,!47349!(1957).!!
44 !Brij!Bhushan!v!State!of!Delhi,!A.I.R.!1950!S.C.!129!(India).!
45 !Pattamal!v!Chief!Presidency!Magistrate,!Egmore,'A.I.R.!1951!Mad.!950.!
46 !Alexandrowicz,!supra!note!43.!!

! 22!
restrictions! to! the! freedom! of! speech.! The! Committee! introduced! the! term!
‘reasonable’!before!‘restrictions’!bringing!it!in!line!with!the!other!provisions!of!Art.!
19.!The!Committee!also!introduced!the!terms!‘in!the!interests!of!public!order’!and!
‘friendly!relations!with!foreign!states’!into!the!proviso.!!

The! debates! around! the! first! amendment! can! be! identified! as! being! within! three!
main!viewpoints!–!Nehru’s!authoritarian!statism,!S.P.!Mookerjee’s!classic!liberalism!
and!Ambedkar’s!severe!distrust!of!unrestricted!freedom!of!expression!in!a!society!
marked!by!extreme!inequality.47!It!is!the!memories!of!communal!violence,!and!the!
fear!of!public!disorder!that!dominated!the!discussion.!This!can!be!seen!most!clearly!
in! Nehru’s! impassioned! defense! of! the! First! Amendment! to! the! constitution,!
justifying! the! tightening! of! restrictions! on! free! speech.! Nehru,! addressing! member!
of!the!Indian!Parliament!said,!

“We'live'in'a'haunted'age.'I'do'not'know'how'many'Hon’ble'members'have'that'
sense' and' that' feelingg' we' in' this' country' or' in' the' world' –' of' ghosts' and'
apparitions' surrounding' us,' ideas,' passions,' hatred,' violence,' preparations' for'
war,' many' things' which' you' cannot' grip,' nevertheless' which' are' more'
dangerous'than'other'things…48'

Nehru!invoked!the!memory!of!partition,!reminding!the!lawmakers!of!the!immediate!
tragic!history!of!violence!and!of!the!overarching!need!to!maintain!public!order.!

“How'many'of'you'remember,'or'have'you'forgotten,'three'and'a'half'years'ago,'
in' this' city' of' Delhi' in' the' month' of' September' 1947' in' Punjab,' in' that' entire'
body'of'western'Pakistan,'what'happened?'This'constitution'was'not'there,'but'I'
am' not' thinking' of' the' constitution.' Where' was' freedom' anywheregnot'
constitutional'freedom'but'the'freedom'of'normal'human'impulsesgwhere'were'
those'freedoms?'Do'you'think'any'constitution'will'prevent'me'from'dealing'with'

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
47 !Menon,'supra!note!41!at!203.!
48 !THE!PARLIAMENTARY!DEBATES,!OFFICIAL!REPORT,!PART!II,!9626!(May!29,!1951).!

! 23!
 such' a' situation?' No.' Otherwise' the' whole' constitution' goes' and' the' country'
goes49'

In! Parliament,! Law! Minister! Ambedkar! defended! the! First! Amendment! by! saying!
that!said!since!the!Parliament!or!state!legislatures!could!not!re3enact!these!laws,!the!
government!was!forced!to!amend!the!Constitution.50!!

The!First!Amendment!was!debated!in!May!1951!and!passed!in!Parliament!in!June!
1951.51! In! the! debates! on! the! First! Amendment,! we! see! the! figure! of! the! easily!
excitable! colonial! subject! transform! into! an! invocation! of! memory,! the! ghostly!
apparition!of!a!citizenry!haunted!by!the!specter!of!communal!violence!and!the!scars!
of!Partition.!

As!a!result!of!the!First!Amendment,!and!the!introduction!of!the!language!of!“in!the!
interests! of! public! order”! in! the! restrictions! to! the! freedom! of! speech! and!
expression! provided! in! art.! 19! ξ! 2,! hate! speech! provisions! have! survived! every!
single!constitutional!challenge!so!far.!However,!in!the!process!of!deliberating!these!
challenges,!courts!have!also!delineated!the!scope!of!these!laws.!

The!first!significant!challenge!to!hate!speech!law!was!a!constitutional!challenge!to!
ξ295A!of!the!Penal!Code!in!Ramjilal'Modi52,'a!case!related!to!an!article!in!a!magazine!
devoted!to!cow!protection!(Gaurakshak)!published!in!1952!that!covered!an!ongoing!
agitation!by!Muslims.!The!petitioner!argued!that!ξ!295A!violated!art.!19!ξ!1!cl.!a,!of!
the! Constitution! because! the! section! criminalized! speech! that! insulted! a! person’s!
religious!belief.!He!argued!that!the!exception!to!art.!19!ξ!1!relevant!to!this!case!was!
speech! that! affected! public! order.! However,! ξ! 295A,! by! criminalizing! insults! to!
religious! belief! broadly,! impacted! both! speech! that! impacted! public! order,! and!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
49 !Id'at!9628.'!
50 !Alexandrowicz,!supra!note!43.!
51! Burra,'supra! note!33.!Burra!gives!a!detailed!account!of!the!debates!around!the!First!Amendment.!
Burra! argues! in! his! paper,! that! from! the! language! of! the! debate! on! the! First! Amendment! in!
Parliament,!it!appears!as!if!members!of!Parliament!had!not!yet!come!to!grips!with!the!language!of!
constitutionalism.!
52 !Ramjilal!Modi!v!State!of!Uttar!Pradesh,!A.I.R.!1957!S.C.!620!(India).!

! 24!
speech!that!did!not.!I.e.!insulting!religious!belief!did!not!lead!to!public!disorder!in!
every!case.!This!was!an!argument!that!the!section!was!over!inclusive!or!overbroad.!!!!

The! court! held! that! after! the! First! Amendment! in! 1951,! the! language! of! art.19! ξ! 2!
read! –! “in! the! interests! of! public! order”.! This! has! to! be! read! very! widely,! so! a! law!
like!ξ!295A!might!not!directly!deal!with!public!order!but!can!be!read!to!be!“in!the!
interests!of!public!order”.!!To!buttress!this!point!the!court!pointed!to!the!framing!of!
art.!25!and!art.!26!of!the!Constitution,!that!provide!for!Freedom!of!Religion,!which!
are!also!subject!to!public!order.!!

While! upholding! the! vires! of! the! section,! the! court! clarified! the! scope! of! section!
ξ295A.!It!held!that!ξ!295A!did!not!criminalize!all!acts!that!insulted!religious!belief!
but! only! insults! or! attempts! to! insult! religious! feelings! of! a! class! made! with!
“deliberate!and!malicious!intention!of!outraging!the!religious!feelings!of!that!class”.!
Therefore,!insults!made!unwittingly,!carelessly!or!without!deliberate!and!malicious!
intention!of!outraging!the!religious!feelings!of!that!class!would!not!be!included.!The!
court!says!the!calculated!tendency!of!such!insults!(when!made!with!deliberate!and!
malicious!intention)!is!to!impact!public!order.!The!court!thus!held!that!ξ!295A!fell!
well!within!the!protection!of!Article!19(2).!!

The! court! by! implication! has! held! that! insults! to! religious! belief! made! with!
deliberate!and!malicious!intention!have!public!order!implications.!

A! Constitutional! challenge! to! ξ! 99A! of! Code! of! Criminal! Procedure! arose! in! the!
context!of!the!Andhra!Pradesh!government!having!forfeited!copies!of!a!Telegu!book,!
Bible! Bandaram! (Treasure! of! the! Bible)! under! ξ! 99A! of! the! Code! of! Criminal!
Procedure.53! The! author! challenged! this,! saying! that! he! had! dealt! with! the! Bible!
from! a! scientific! and! rationalist! point! of! view.! The! petitioner! also! challenged! the!
constitutionality!of!ξ!99A!of!the!Code!of!Criminal!Procedure.!!The!majority!observed!
that!the!First!Amendment!had!widened!the!scope!of!art.!19!ξ!2,!specifically!referring!
to!the!language!of!‘in!the!interests!of!public!order’!that!was!introduced!through!the!
amendment.! The! Court! held! that! any! law! penalizing! activities,! which! have! a!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
53!N. Veerabrahmam v State Of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1959 A.P. 572.!

! 25!
tendency!to!cause!public!disorder,!is!within!(the!scope!of)!authorized!limits!of!this!
provision.! The! Court! said! that! this! pronouncement! of! the! Supreme! Court! applies!
equally!to!ξ!993A!Criminal!Procedure!Code!since!it!is!only!a!matter!that!would!fall!
either!within!the!ambit!of!ξ!!2953A!or!ξ!!1243A!and!ξ!!1533A!of!the!Penal!Code!that!
would!enable!the!Government!to!take!action!under!Section!993A.!!
!
The! majority! said! that! in! considering! whether! ξ! 993A! imposes! a! reasonable!
restriction,! it! has! to! be! remembered! that! ξ! 993D! contains! a! provision! for! judicial!
corrective.!Further,!in!deciding!whether!a!particular!restriction!is!reasonable!or!not,!
the! Court! should! take! into! account! the! character! of! the! right! alleged! to! have! been!
violated!and!the!underlying!purpose!of!the!restriction!imposed.!The!Court!held!that!
in!this!case!the!restriction!imposed!by!ξ!!993A!was!not!disproportionate!to!the!evil!
so!construed.!The!majority!held!that!it!is!only!insults!to!religion!or!religious!beliefs!
that! are! deliberately! and! maliciously! made! that! would! bring! into! play! ξ! 993A!
Criminal! Procedure! Code.! It! stated! that! the! intention! of! the! author! has! to! be!
gathered! primarily! from! the! language! used.! If! the! words! employed! are! of! such! a!
nature! as! would! lead! any! reasonable! man! to! think! that! they! are! grossly! offensive!
and! provocative! and! are! intended! to! be! regarded! as! such,! the! consequences!
indicated!in!that!section!ensue.!!
!
These! decisions! reflect! the! attitude! that! courts! have! had! to! challenges! to! criminal!
provisions! based! on! free! speech! claims.! Courts! have! generally! upheld! the!
constitutionality!of!hate!speech!laws,!while!limiting!their!application.!For!instance,!
in!1962,!the!Supreme!Court!upheld!the!constitutionality!of!the!sedition!law!(ξ!124A!
of! the! Penal! Code),! while! limiting! its! application! to! acts! involving! intention! or!
tendency! to! create! disorder,! or! disturbance! of! law! and! order,! or! incitement! to!
violence.54!!The!1960s!also!saw!a!significant!development!related!to!free!speech!in!
the!form!of!the!Sixteenth!Amendment!to!the!Constitution.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
54 !Kedarnath!Singh!v!State!of!Bihar,!A.I.R.!1962!S.C.!955!(India).!!!

! 26!
C.!THE!SIXTEENTH!AMENDMENT!AND!AFTER!!
!

The! period! from! the! early! 60s! to! the! early! 70s! was! a! turbulent! time! in! Indian!
political!history.!It!saw!the!defeat!of!the!Indian!army!in!the!Sino3Indian!1962!war.!It!
also! saw! the! onset! of! the! post! Nehru! era! and! the! gradual! splintering! of! complete!
Congress! dominance.! This! period! also! saw! the! demand! for! secessionism! from! the!
Dravidian! agitation! in! Tamil! Nadu! spearheaded! by! the! Tamil! regional! party! the!
Dravida!Munnetra!Kazhagam!(DMK).!!

These!political!developments!were!reflected!in!the!debates!around!the!enactment!of!
the! Constitutional! (Sixteenth)! Amendment! of! 1963.! The! Central! government!
introduced!restrictions!in!the!interest!of!the!‘sovereignty!and!integrity!of!India!into!
art.!19!ξ!2,!thus!narrowing!the!scope!of!freedom!of!speech.!The!Tamil!regional!party!
DMK!had!made!steady!gains!in!both!state!and!national!elections,!building!on!its!plea!
for!self3determination.!The!ruling!Congress!party,!which!had!an!absolute!majority!in!
Parliament,! used! the! war! with! China! as! an! excuse! to! bring! about! constitutional!
changes! that! would! make! it! impossible! for! the! DMK! to! contest! elections! unless! it!
explicitly!rejected!the!claim!for!secession!and!accepted!the!sovereignty!of!the!Indian!
Constitution.!!

The! Congress! party! appointed! C.P.! Ramaswamy! Iyer! to! head! the! National!
Integration! Committee! to! examine! the! issue! of! the! demands! of! secession.! The!
Report!submitted!in!November!1962,!recommended!that!art.!19!ξ!2,!be!amended!to!
include!“sovereignty!and!integrity!of!India”,!and!also!that!all!candidates!contesting!
elections!be!made!to!take!a!pledge!at!the!time!they!filed!their!nomination!papers!to!
uphold!the!sovereignty!and!integrity!of!India.55

Despite!the!DMK!openly!declaring!support!for!India’s!war!efforts!against!China,!the!
government! moved! a! bill! to! enact! the! 16th! Constitutional! Amendment.! This! move!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
55 !PARLIAMENT!FOR!THE!PEOPLE:!SPEECHES!BY!ERA!SEZHIYAN,!5,!6!(2011).!

! 27!
was! viewed! with! great! suspicion! in! Chennai! where! it! was! widely! seen! as! an! anti3
DMK!bill.!56

Then! Law! Minister! A.K.! Sen! justified! the! amendment! in! the! interest! of! outlawing!
secessionism,!in!the!absence!of!which!the!situation!in!India,!the!minister!said,!would!
be!the!same!as!in!1940,!when!the!Muslim!League!first!put!forward!the!idea!of!the!
Partition!of!India.!Parliament!overlooked!the!point!made!by!some!members!that!the!
DMK!had!already!dropped!secessionism!from!its!charter.57

During! the! debate! on! this! issue! Era! Sezhiyan,! DMK! Member! of! Parliament! was!
among! those! who! requested! the! government! to! postpone! the! discussion.! These!
members! argued! that! the! Sixteenth! Amendment! dealt! with! measures! to! curb!
demands! for! self3determination! and! had! nothing! to! do! with! India’s! war! efforts.!
Sezhiyan,!during!the!course!of!his!speech!quoted!U.S.!Supreme!Court!Justice!Jackson!
from!West'Virginia'State'Board'of'Education!v!Barnette58,!Justice!Holmes’!dissent!in!
Abrams,59!and!Thomas!Jefferson’s!speech!when!he!inaugurated!the!first!Congress!of!
the! United! States.! Sezhiyan! also! quoted! Nehru,! who! on! multiple! occasions! before!
independence! spoke! of! the! importance! of! the! right! to! freedom! of! speech! and!
expression.!The!Congress’!brute!majority!in!Parliament!meant!that!the!Amendment!
was! passed! without! any! difficulty.! Thus! ‘sovereignty! and! integrity’! became!
additional!factors!that!circumscribed!the!right!to!freedom!of!speech!and!expression.!!

These! constitutional! developments! set! the! stage! for! future! legislative! changes! in!
related! to! insult! to! religious! belief! and! hurt! sentiment.! ! In! 1961,! the! government!
amended! the! Representative! of! the! People! (Amendment)! Act! of! 1951! to! insert!
sections! related! to! hate! speech.! ξ! 123! (3)! A! was! introduced! to! punish! the!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! COORDINATION! OF! DEMOCRATIC! RIGHTS! ORGANISATIONS,! THE! TERROR! OF! LAW:! UAPA! AND! THE! MYTH! OF!
56

NATIONAL!SECURITY,!20321!(2012).!

!LOK!SABHA!DEBATES,!5759–5841!(Jan.!22,!1963)!and!LOK!SABHA!DEBATES,!13409–13506!(May!2,!
57

1963),!in!Id.!

58! West!Virginia!State!Board!of!Education ! v! Barnette,! 319!U.S.!624! (1943).! ‘Freedom!to!differ!is!not!

limited!to!things!that!do!not!matter!much.!That!would!be!a!more!shadow!of!freedom.!The!test!of!its!
substance!is!the!right!to!differ!as!to!things!that!touch!the!heart!of!the!existing!order.’!Id!at!13.!
59! Abrams! v! United! States,! 250! U.S.! 616,! 624! (1919).! Justice! Holmes! famous! dissent! in! this! case!

referred!to!the!value!of!free!trade!in!ideas.!This!late!came!to!be!referred!to!as!the!value!of!‘the!market!
place!of!ideas’!!

! 28!
“promotion! of,! or! attempt! to! promote,! feelings! of! enmity! or! hatred! between!
different! classes! of! the! citizens! of! India”.60! Section! 125! was! introduced! to! punish!
any!person!who!in!connection!with!an!election!“promotes!or!attempts!to!promote!
on! grounds! of! religion,! race,! caste,! community! or! language,! feelings! of! enmity! or!
hatred! between! different! classes! of! citizens! of! India”.61! ! The! Indian! Penal! Code!
(Amendment)! Act! of! 1961! brought! changes! to! ξ! 153A,! ξ! 295A! and! ξ! 505.! The!
exception!to!ξ!153A!was!dropped.62!The!maximum!punishment!under!ξ!295A!and!ξ!
505! was! increased! from! two! to! three! years.! The! 43rd! Law! Commission! Report!
remarked!on!the!changes!made!to!the!criminal!law!in!1961.!

“During the last decade, there have been occasions for apprehending a threat to
the country’s security from certain centrifugal forces which aim at the
disintegration of the country. Article 19(2) of the Constitution was amended in
order to ensure that the freedom of speech and expression is not abused by the
propagation of views supporting such tendencies.” Therefore the Criminal Law
Amendments Act, 1961 along with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967
were introduced to deal with these issues. The Amendments were made to Sections
153A and 295A of the IPC.!63!

The!government!also!amended!the!Representation!of!People’s!Act!of!1951!making!it!
unlawful!to!promote!or!attempt!to!promote!enmity!or!hatred!on!grounds!of!religion,!
race,!caste,!community,!or!language,!between!different!classes!of!citizens!of!India.64
Thus! hate! speech! provisions! were! tightened! during! this! period,! in! response! to!
secessionist!demands.!This!in!turn!meant!that!the!scope!for!freedom!of!expression!
under!art.!19!ξ!1!became!narrower.!!
!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
60 !Central!Acts,!1961!p.!227,!available!at!http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1961.pdf.!
61 !Id!at!242.!
62 !Id.!
63!43RD!LAW!COMMISSION!REPORT!ON!OFFENCES!AGAINST!THE!NATIONAL!SECURITY,!12!(Aug.!31,!1971),!

available!at!http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1350/Report43.pdf.!
64!ξ!!125!inserted!in!Chapter!III,!Part!VII,!supra'note!60,!at!227.! !

! 29!
In! 1969,! following! the! recommendations! of! the! National! Integration! Council,! the!
government!amended!ξ!153A!and!ξ!505!of!the!Penal!Code!to!address!the!problem!of!
communal!tensions.65!Members!of!the!Council!who!included!government!and!police!
officials,! and! activists! working! on! issues! of! communal! violence! viewed! the!
strengthening! of! ξ! 153A! and! ξ! 295A! as! a! key! strategy! to! prevent! communal! riots!
and!violence.66!

A! few! years! after! these! amendments,! in! 1971,! the! Bombay! High! Court! upheld! a!
constitutional! challenge! to! ξ! 153A! of! the! Penal! Code! and! ξ! 99A! of! the! Code! of!
Criminal! Procedure! in! Gopal' Vinayak' Godse.67' This' case! related! to! a! book! that!
allegedly! disparaged! Mahatma! Gandhi.! The! Court! upheld! the! constitutionality! of! ξ!!
153A! on! the! ground! that! it! sought! to! punish! only! (a)! such! acts! which! have! the!
tendency! to! promote! enmity! or! hatred! between! different! classes! or! (b)! such! acts!
which!are!prejudicial!to!the!maintenance!of!harmony!between!different!classes!and!
which! have! the! tendency! to! disturb! public! tranquility.68! The! court! said! that! the!
limitations!imposed!by!ξ!153A!are!in!the!interests!of!public!order,!and!Art.!19!ξ!2!
would! therefore! save! ξ! 153A! as! being! within! the! scope! of! permissible! legislative!
restrictions!on!the!fundamental!right!guaranteed!by!Art.!19!ξ!1!cl.!a.!The!Court!while!
upholding!the!constitutionality!of!ξ!153A!of!the!Penal!Code!and!ξ!99A!of!the!Code!of!
Criminal! Procedure! struck! down! the! order! of! forfeiture! related! to! the! book! in!
question.!

In! 1972,! a! year! after! its! constitutional! validity! was! upheld,! the! government!
amended!ξ!153A!to!add!ξ!!1!cl.!c!!was!added!by!the!Criminal!Law!Amendment!Act,!
31! of! 1972! specifically! outlawing! the! activities! of! organizing! drills,! exercises! and!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
65 !TEXTBOOK!ON!THE!INDIAN!PENAL!CODE,!261!(K.D.!Gaur!ed.,!4th!ed.!2009).!
66!REPORT!OF!WORKING!GROUP!OF!NATIONAL!INTEGRATION!COUNCIL!TO!STUDY!REPORTS!ON!THE!COMMISSIONS!OF!
INQUIRY!ON!COMMUNAL!RIOTS,!20,!59,!71,!(2007),!available!at!
http://mha.nic.in/hindi/sites/upload_files/mhahindi/files/pdf/NIC3W3Group.pdf.!
67!Gopal!Vinayak!Godse!v!State!of!Maharashtra,!A.I.R.!1971!Bom.!56.!

68 !Id.!

! 30!
similar!movements!that!cause!alarm,!apprehension,!fear!or!insecurity!to!a!targeted!
group.69!

Thus!in!the!1960s!and!early!70s!we!find!a!shift!from!the!figure!of!the!postcolonial!
subject! haunted! by! the! specter! of! Partition! to! the! secessionist! and! disruptive!
subject,!who!is!dealt!with!by!laws!framed!through!the!lens!of!national!integrity!and!
unity.! In! the! debates! around! secession! in! the! 1960s! the! trope! of! Partition! is!
recycled,! but! the! threat! in! this! case! is! more! in! the! nature! of! a! splintering! or!
fracturing! of! the! country! on! the! basis! if! language! and! ethnicity! rather! than! a!
partitioning!into!two.!The!serious!problem!of!communal!violence!addressed!by!the!
Report! of! the! National! Integration! Council! led! to! a! strengthening! of! existing! hate!
speech! legislation.! Constitutional! challenges! continue! to! hate! speech! law! continue!
to! fail.! In! both! the! 50s! and! the! 60s! the! restrictions! on! free! speech! through! a!
tightening! of! hate! speech! laws! is! directly! linked! to! the! perceived! threat! to! the!
sovereignty!of!the!state.!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
69 !Gaur,!supra!note!65.!

! 31!
 III.!RECENT!DEVELOPMENTS:!

A.!DEBATES!IN!THE!NINETIES:!!

In! the! period! of! the! Emergency,! hate! speech! as! an! issue! was! eclipsed! by! broader!
concerns! of! political! repression! and! freedom! of! speech! and! expression.! We! get! a!
glimpse!of!this!equation!in!the!case!of!State'of'Uttar'Pradesh!v!Lalai'Singh'Yadav70,!
in!which!Justice!Krishna!Iyer,!writing!for!a!five3judge!struck!down!an!Uttar!Pradesh!
government!order!banning!a!translation!of!the!Ramayana!by!the!radical!Tamil!social!
reformer!Periyar.!The!government!claimed!that!by!treating!the!main!characters!of!
this!epic!with!disdain,!Periyar!had!offended!the!religious!sentiments!of!a!majority!of!
the!Hindu!population.!The!Court!did!not!address!the!substantive!arguments!in!this!
case!and!struck!down!the!ban!on!procedural!grounds.!The!Court!observed!that!the!
judgment!pertains!to!the!rule!of!law!in!the!pre3Emergency!period!and!that!the!rules!
were!very!different!during!an!Emergency.!!
!
In!the!1980s!and!early!1990s,!many!ξ!153A!cases!were!filed!in!the!context!of!claims!
of!sedition,!along!with!ξ!124A!of!the!Penal!Code,!which!deals!directly!with!sedition.!
A!number!of!these!cases!were!filed!in!Punjab!and!Kashmir,!in!the!context!of!militant!
separatist!movements!that!the!state!put!down!through!repressive!measures.71!From!
the! period! of! the! mid! 90s! to! 2013,! there! is! an! explosion! of! hate! speech! claims,!
evidenced! both! through! media! reports! and! through! the! number! of! reported!
judgments!of!the!High!Courts!and!Supreme!Court.!One!possible!factor!for!this!is!the!
rise! of! Hindu! nationalism,! and! increasingly! communalized! public! sphere.! Dhavan!
has! pointed! out! that! Hindu! nationalists! used! hate! speech! law! with! great! effect! to!
target!artists!and!authors!to!further!their!agenda.72!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
70!State!of!Uttar!Pradesh'v!Lalai!Singh!Yadav,!(1976) 4 S.C.C. 213 (India).!
71!This!can!be!inferred!from!perusing!the!reported!ξ!153A!High!Court!and!Supreme!Court!cases!in!

this!period.!!
72!RAJEEV!DHAVAN,!HARASSING!HUSAIN:!USES!AND!ABUSES!OF!THE!LAW!OF!HATE!SPEECH,'(Mar.!2007). !!
!

! 32!
!
This!explosion!in!hurt!sentiment!claims!has!led!to!a!public!debate,!especially!among!
liberal! voices! that! have! pointed! to! the! increasing! stifling! of! free! speech! through!
claims! of! hurt! sentiments.! These! viewpoints! can! be! sifted! into! the! following!
arguments:!

1.!Process!as!Punishment:!

One! stream! of! analysis! has! focused! on! the! “Process! as! Punishment”! view! that! is! a!
larger! concern! around! how! free! speech! is! restricted! in! India! through! frivolous!
litigation!targeted!at!harassing!the!speaker.!This!view!is!exemplified!by!the!writing!
of! Supreme! Court! lawyer! Rajeev! Dhavan.! Dhavan! has! described! hate! speech!
litigation! as! a! form! of! SLAPPS! litigation! (Strategic! Litigation! against! Public!
Participation),! a! term! devised! in! the! United! States! to! refer! to! large! corporate!
companies! with! financial! muscle! bullying! critical! voices! through! litigation.! Even! if!
their! chances! of! winning! are! low,! the! litigation! serves! a! way! of! harassing! the!
speaker,! and! wears! down! activists! and! individuals! who! criticize! their! policies.!
Dhavan!terms!the!Indian!equivalent!of!cases!filed!in!free!speech!related!cases!KICKS!
((K)!Criminal!Intimidatory!Coercive!Knockout!Strategy).73!!

Taking!note!of!this!problem,!the!Supreme!Court!has!laid!the!blame!on!lower!courts!
not! being! vigilant! enough! to! be! able! to! filter! out! vexatious! litigation.74! In! case!
involving!hate!speech!and!sedition!claims,!the!court!observed:!

“Before'parting'with'this'judgment,'we'wish'to'observe'that'the'manner'in'which'
convictions' have' been' recorded' for' offences' under' Sections' 153gA,' 124gA' and'
505(2),' has' exhibited' a' very' casual' approach' of' the' trial' court.' Let' alone' the'
absence' of' any' evidence' which' may' attract' the' provisions' of' the' sections,' as'
already' observed,' even' the' charges' framed' against' the' appellant' for' these'
offences'did'not'contain'the'essential'ingredients'of'the'offences'under'the'three'

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
73 !Id!at'1.!
74 !Bilal!Ahmed!Kaloo!v!State!of!Andhra!Pradesh,!A.I.R.!1997!S.C.!3483!(India).!

! 33!
 sections.' The' appellant' strictly' speaking' should' not' have' been' put' to' trial' for'
those'offences.'Mechanical'order'convicting'a'citizen'for'offences'of'such'serious'
nature' like' sedition' and' to' promote' enmity' and' hatred' etc.' does' harm' to' the'
cause.'It'is'expected'that'graver'the'offence,'greater'should'be'the'care'taken'so'
that'the'liberty'of'a'citizen'is'not'lightly'interfered'with.”75''

The! cause! célèbre! of! this! specific! type! of! case! was! the! late! artist! M.F.! Husain! who!
facing! multiple! charges! of! obscenity! cases! filed! against! him! for! his! artwork,! spent!
years! fighting! these! cases! in! courts! in! India! and! in! the! last! few! years! of! his! life!
decided!to!seek!Qatari!citizenship.76!The!focus!of!those!espousing!this!view!has!been!
on! procedural! reform! in! the! criminal! law,! rather! than! substantive! changes.!
Proponents!of!this!view!say!that!if!the!procedure!can!be!changed!to!limit!vexatious!
litigation,!then!a!large!part!of!the!problem!will!be!solved.!

2.!Profitable!Provocation:!!

Anthropologists! William! Mazarella! and! Raminder! Kaur! have! offered! us! the! term!
‘profitable!provocation’!as!a!way!of!thinking!about!the!phenomenon!of!cases!being!
filed,!usually!by!non!state!actors!to!target!and!harass!artists,!intellectuals!and!other!
speakers.77!They!associate!these!cases!with!increasingly!saturated!media!coverage,!
where! non3state! actors! can! use! these! incidents! to! strategically! further! their! own!
ends.! ! Many! hate! speech! claims! in! the! period! post! the! 1990s! have! been! filed! by!
Hindu! right! wing! organizations,! who! ironically! began! using! the! law! to! claim! that!
their! sentiments! were! being! hurt! by! liberal! speech! or! artwork,! especially! art!
depicting! Hindu! gods,! or! mythology.! ! Their! strategies,! which! gave! them! more!
visibility!in!the!media,!proved!to!be!extremely!effective.!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
75!Id'at!Para!24. !
76 !For!a!more!detailed!account!of!the!M.F.!Husain!case!see!Dhavan,!supra!note!72.!
77!William!Mazzarella!&!Raminder!Kaur,!Introduction,'to!CENSORSHIP!IN!SOUTH!ASIA:!CULTURAL!

REGULATION!FROM!SEDITION!TO!SEDUCTION!1723205,!(William!Mazzarella!&!Raminder!Kaur,!eds.!,!
Indiana:!Indiana!University!Press,!2009).!

! 34!
Dhavan,!while!referring!to!the!M.F.!Husain!and!other!cases!filed!by!Hindu!right!wing!
organizations! in! the! 1990s! describes! this! process! as! the! first! stage! in! hate! speech!
cases,!the!‘manufacturing!of!hate!speech’.78!The!second!stage!involved!manipulating!
the!law!by!filing!the!case!in!a!jurisdiction!that!is!favorable!to!the!petitioners,!where!
they!have!influence.79!This!is!possible!since!the!cause!of!action!in!hate!speech!cases!
can! lie! outside! the! jurisdiction! of! where! the! artist,! or! speaker! resides.! Jurisdiction!
extends! to! the! place! of! publication! and! distribution! of! material.! Dhavan! describes!
the! third! stage! as! crude! intimidation! through! hooliganism! or! vandalism.80! This!
takes!on!the!form!of!vigilante!policing!of!what!is!acceptable!and!what!is!not.!

A! powerful! challenge! to! the! liberal! view! on! hate! speech! has! been! articulated! by!
academics!like!Talal!Asad!and!Saba!Mahmood!in!the!context!of!debates!around!the!
Danish! cartoon! controversy.! Asad! questions! the! binary! between! Western! secular!
liberal! polities! associated! with! free! speech! and! non3Western! religious! polity!
associated! with! fundamentalism,! intolerance! and! restrictions! on! speech.81! Asad!
questions! the! assumption! that! the! crime! of! blasphemy! is! automatically! associated!
with!a!restriction!on!speech,!based!on!the!Western!assumption!that!the!individual!
be!free!from!all!coercion.!He!points!to!the!weight!that!social!relations!are!given!in!
Islamic! societies! rather! than! the! importance! of! individual! belief.! Mahmood! points!
out!that!the!outrage!in!the!west!over!the!banning!of!the!Danish!cartoons!is!a!result!
of! their! inability! to! step! outside! of! the! liberal! framework! and! recognize! that! the!
cartoons! have! disrupted! a! deeply! affective! relationship! between! the! believer! and!
the!Prophet.!!They!criticize!Western!liberal!commentators!as!being!dismissive!of!the!
claim! of! moral! injury! and! violence! caused! by! the! cartoons,! thus! assuming! the!
universality!of!their!worldview.82!Asad!and!Mahmood!are!ambivalent!about!the!role!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
78 !Dhavan,!supra!note!72!at!15.!!
79!Id.!This!strategy!is!used!in!other!types!of!hate!speech!cases!like!contempt!of!court,!sedition,!

obscenity!and!defamation!where!the!same!rules!of!jurisdiction!apply.!
80 !Id.!
81!Talal!Asad,!Free'Speech,'Blasphemy'and'Secular'Criticism,!in!IS! CRITIQUE! SECULAR?:!BLASPHEMY,!INJURY!

AND!FREE!SPEECH,!(Talal!Asad!et!al.,!eds.!2009).!

! Saba!Mahmood,!Religion,'Reason'and'Secular'Affect'in!IS! CRITIQUE! SECULAR?:!BLASPHEMY,!INJURY! AND!

82

FREE!SPEECH,!(Talal!Asad!et!al.,!eds.!2009).!

! 35!
of! the! law! in! this! debate,! and! did! not! go! as! far! as! saying! that! the! acts! of! the!
cartoonists!should!be!criminalized.!!!

Strands!of!this!viewpoint!were!reflected!in!the!outrage!over!a!cartoon!prescribed!in!
NCERT! (National! Council! for! Educational! Research! and! Training)! i.e.! government!
prescribed! textbooks,! depicting! the! framer! of! the! Indian! Constitution! B.R.!
Ambedkar! on! a! snail! with! former! Prime! Minister! Nehru,! who! was! holding! a! whip.!
The!cartoon!was!published!in!a!magazine!called!Shankar’s!Weekly'in!1949,!a!year!
before! the! Indian! Constitution! came! into! force.! The! context! to! the! cartoon! was!
criticism!at!the!time!of!the!slow!pace!of!the!drafting!of!the!constitution.!The!cartoon!
did!not!create!a!controversy!when!it!was!originally!published.!However,!the!current!
controversy!was!around!whether!the!cartoon!was!insulting!to!Dalits!and!whether!it!
was! appropriate! to! include! it! in! a! textbook! meant! for! schoolchildren.! Several!
commentators!pointed!out!that!the!whip!was!symbolic!of!years!of!oppression!that!
Dalits,! who! Ambedkar! represented,! faced! at! the! hands! of! upper! castes.! Liberals!
defended!the!cartoon!saying!that!the!criticisms!were!taken!out!of!context,!and!that!
there!has!to!be!space!of!satire!and!caricature!of!public!figures.!Historian!Ajay!Skaria,!
writing!in!the!media!website!Kafila,!questioned!this!claim,!arguing!that!the!humour!
that! was! being! cited! here! was! constituted! around! “a! profound! and! constitutive!
inequality”83!

There!are!parallels!between!this!debate!and!the!debates!on!whether!racist!speech!
should! be! regulated! in! the! United! States.! Scholars! like! Richard! Delgado! and! Mari!
Matsuda! have! argued! that! racist! speech! must! be! restricted! as! it! perpetuates!
historical! inequalities! and! does! cause! harm! to! communities! that! have! been! at! the!
receiving!end!of!targeted!violence.84!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!
83Ajay! Skaria,! Violence' and' Laughter,! KAFILA! BLOG! (MAY.! 25,! 2012)!
http://kafila.org/2012/05/25/violence3and3laughter3ajay3skaria3on3the3ambedkar3cartoon3
controversy/,!(last!visited!Apr.!9,!2014).!!
84! MARI! J.!MATSUDA,!CHARLES! R.!LAWRENCE! III,!RICHARD! DELGADO! &!KIMBERLY! WILLIAMS! CRENSHAW,!WORDS!

THAT!WOUND:!CRITICAL!RACE!THEORY,!ASSAULTATIVE!SPEECH!AND!THE!FIRST!AMENDMENT,!(1993).!

! 36!
A! number! of! academics! and! commentators! on! free! speech! issues! have! held! a! firm!
view!that!hate!speech!should!not!be!regulated!unless!there!is!a!direct!and!proximate!
link! to! violence.! They! also! argue! that! while! hate! speech! laws! are! touted! as! laws!
instituted! to! protect! vulnerable! minorities,! including! in! communal! violence!
situations,! in! practice! they! are! used! by! powerful! majorities! to! prevent! minorities!
from! speaking! and! clamping! down! on! dissent.! This! includes! academics! Shohini!
Ghosh! and! Nivedita! Menon.! ! This! can! broadly! be! termed! the! Democracy! and!
Distrust!argument,!after!the!American!academic!John!Hart!Ely’s!term!that!has!been!
used!to!describe!how!distrust!of!the!government!is!one!of!the!fundamental!reasons!
for!the!high!level!of!protection!for!speech!in!the!United!States.85!

According!to!this!view!hate!speech!should!be!treated!like!other!categories!of!speech!
like!obscenity!and!sedition!should!be!decriminalized.!They!see!hate!speech!laws!as!
giving!the!state!enormous!power!to!regulate!the!flow!of!information.!According!to!
this!view,!being!subject!to!hateful!speech!is!the!price!that!some!individuals!will!have!
to!pay!to!ensure!a!more!democratic!society.!86!!

3.!Listener’s!Rights:!

Proponents!of!this!view!argue!that!the!constitution!protects!not!just!the!speaker’s!
right!to!speak,!but!to!the!listener’s!right!to!be!informed.!This!argument!has!received!
doctrinal! support! in! the! Sujato' Bhadra! case! in! which! the! West! Bengal! High! Court!
struck!down!a!ban!on!the!Bangladeshi!Tasleema!Nasreen’s!book,!Dwikhandita.!The!
most! powerful! exposition! of! this! view! can! be! seen! in! a! legal! notice! sent! by!
academics! Shuddhabrata! Sengupta! and! Aarti! Sethi! to! Penguin! after! the! Doniger!
controversy.! In! the! notice,! Sengupta! and! Sethi! alleged! that! Penguin! had! breached!
the!rights!of!readers87!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
85 !JOHN!HART!EALY,!DEMOCRACY!AND!DISTRUST,!(1980).!
86!Shohini!Ghosh,!Censorship'Myths'and'Imagined'Harms,!Sarai'Reader'(Book'4):'Crisis'Media,!4473454!

(Feb!1,!2004)!available!at!http://preview.sarai.net/journal/04_pdf/58shohini.pdf.!
87!Lawrence!Liang,!Legal'Notice'to'Penguin'India'for'Violation'of'Rights'of'Readers,!KAFILA!BLOG,!
(FEB.!17,!2014),!http://kafila.org/2014/02/17/legal3notice3to3penguin3books3india3for3violation3
of3rights3of3readers/,!(last!visited!Mar.!18,!2014).!

! 37!
4.!Productive!Aspects!of!Speech:!!

Another!view!on!hate!speech!law!has!been!to!focus!more!attention!to!its!productive!
aspects.! Anthropologist! Asad! Ahmed,! who,! through! his! work! on! blasphemy!
litigation! in! colonial! India,! shows! how! this! plays! out! in! the! colonial! context.88!
Ahmed!argues!that!legal!claims!in!these!blasphemy!cases!would!be!often!presented!
as! exaggerated! versions! of! events,! in! keeping! with! the! nature! of! the! litigation!
process.! This! in! turn! led! to! heightened! counter! claims,! leading! to! a! production! of!
hate! speech! discourse! through! the! law.! In! the! colonial! context! these! claims! were!
mediated! by! the! colonial! state! that! assumed! the! subject! position! of! the! neutral!
arbiter! mediating! the! claims! of! unruly! religious! communities! who! were! quick! to!
take! offence! and! who! sentiments! were! easily! hurt.! Much! of! existing! Indian! law! is!
based!on!these!assumptions.!!

Indian! courts! post! independence! are! very! aware! of! the! productive! aspects! of! hate!
speech!claims,!and!have!often!made!sure!that!certain!sensitive!cases!are!either!not!
entertained!or!are!subject!to!restrictions!preventing!the!media!from!reporting!the!
proceedings!in!court.89!

5.!Bazaar!of!Ideas:!

One!strand!of!thought!is!that!far!from!the!tinderbox!of!communal!conflagration!that!
we! assume! Indian! society! to! be,! Indian! society! is! actually! resembles! a! bazaar! of!
ideas,!where!different!viewpoints!and!communities!have!historically!lived!in!what!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
88!Ahmed,!supra!note!14!at!1723205. !
89! In! a! case! before! the! Calcutta! High! Court! where! the! petitioner! claimed! that! the! Koran! should! be!
proscribed! because! it! violated! ξ! 153A! and! ξ! 295A! of! the! Penal! Code,! the! Court! dismissed! the!
petitioner’s!claims!holding!that!the!Koran!was!a!basic!religious!text!or!scripture!of!Islam,!and!Islam!
was! the! religion! of! a! large! number! of! persons! across! the! world.! Aware! of! the! potentially!
inflammatory!nature!of!the!arguments!that!could!proceed!within!the!courtroom,!the!Court!the!Courts!
cannot!sit!in!judgment!over!the!Koran!or!its!contents!in!any!legal!proceedings. !The!Court!also!said!
that! if! it! were! to! proceed! with! examining! the! claims! of! the! petitioner,! it! would! only! aggravate! the!
mischief!sought!to!be!curbed!by!ξ!153A!and!ξ!295A.!Chandmal!Chopra!v!State!of!West!Bengal,!1988!
Cri!L.J.!739.!

! 38!
anthropologist! Veena! Das! terms! “agonistic! intimacy”.90! This! viewpoint! is! reflected!
by! the! judgments! of! some! Supreme! Court! judges,! notably! Justice! dissent! in! the!
Veerabrahmam! case91,! where! the! Justice! Bheemasankaran! calls! for! society! to! get!
used!to!a!“greater!tolerance!of!intolerance”92!and!the!words!of!Justice!Vivian!Bose!
that! the! effect! of! the! words! in! question! must! be! judged! from! the! standards! of!
reasonable,! strong3minded,! firm! and! courageous! men,! and! not! those! of! weak! and!
vacillating!minds,!nor!of!those!who!scent!danger!in!every!hostile!point!of!view.93!

6.!Language!and!Speech:!

Lawyer! and! legal! researcher! Lawrence! Liang,! drawing! upon! the! work! of! Judith!
Butler!has!argued!that!hate!speech!law!by!criminalizing!all!forms!of!hurt!sentiment!
does! not! take! into! account! the! possibility! of! the! subject! escaping! the! logic! of! the!
law.94! Butler! draws! the! philosopher! John! L.! Austin’s! distinction95! between!
illocutionary! and! perlocutionary! speech.! Illocutionary! speech! refers! to! speech!
where!there!is!simultaneously!description!and!action,!and!the!utterance!does!what!
it! speaks.96! ! ! Perlocutionary! speech! is! where! there! is! a! disjuncture! between! the!
description! and! its! effect.! Butler,! discussing! the! case! of! R.A.V.! v! City' of' St' Paul97!
draws!on!Althusser!to!ask!whether!there!are!circumstances!where!there!the!target!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!Veena!Das,!Of'M.F.'Husain'and'an'Impossible'Love'in!BAREFOOT!ACROSS!THE!NATION:!MAQBOOL!FIDA!
90

HUSAIN!AND!THE!IDEA!OF!INDIA!1213122!(Sumathy!Ramaswamy,!ed.,!2011).!
91 !N.!Veerabrahmam'v'State!of!Andhra!Pradesh,'A.I.R. 1959 A.P. 572.!
92 !Id.'!
93 !Bhagvati Charan Shukla v Provincial Government, A.I.R. 1947 Nagpur 1.!
94!Lawrence!Liang,!Alternative!Law!Forum,!paper!presented!at!the!Asian!College!of!Journalism,!

Chennai,!Censorship!and!the!Problematic!of!Hate!Speech,!(Aug.!2003).!!
95 !JOHN!L.!AUSTIN,!HOW!TO!DO!THINGS!WITH!WORDS,!(J.!O.!Urmson!and!Marina!Sbisa,!eds.,!2!nd!ed.,!1975).!
96 !JUDITH!BUTLER,!EXCITABLE!SPEECH:!A!POLITICS!OF!THE!PERFORMATIVE,!(1997).!!
97!R.A.V.'v'City!of!St.!Paul,!Minn.,! 505!U.S.!377!(1992).!This!case!involved!the!fighting!words!doctrine!
in! the! United! States.! A! black! family! in! a! predominantly! white! neighbourhood! was! subject! to! a!
burning! cross! that! was! lit! outside! their! backyard! by! children! of! the! neighbourhood.! The! U.S.!
Supreme!Court!struck!down!a!St.!Paul!Ordinance!that!prohibited!the!burning!of!a!cross,!holding!it!to!
violate!the!First!Amendment.!This!decision!was!criticized!by!a!number!of!scholars!for!not!taking!into!
account!the!history!of!race!relations!and!special!significance!of!the!burning!cross.!!

! 39!
of! the! speech! act! is! not! interpellated,! or! can! refuse! to! be! interpellated.98! For!
instance,!the!term!‘queer’!that!is!used!as!a!slur,!but!re3appropriated!by!the!‘queer’!
movement! with! a! different! political.! This! argument! sets! up! the! possibility! o!
disaggregating! hate! speech! claims! into! those! that! correspond! to! illocutionary!
speech! and! may! be! regulated,! and! those! that! do! not,! which! should! be! outside! the!
purview!of!the!law.!

7.!Lawfare!and!the!Judicialization!of!Politics:!
!
Another!explanation!is!that!the!trend!of!increasing!legal!claims!around!hate!speech!
reflects!a!broader!trend!in!postcolonial!societies,!a!period!marked!by!the!fetishism!
of!the!law!and!the!judicialization!of!politics,!where!a!culture!of!legality!is!“infusing!
the! capillaries! of! everyday! life”99.! In! this! period! communities! and! individuals! are!
increasingly!resorting!to!‘lawfare’!to!settle!disputed!and!claim!rights.100!The!act!of!
judicialization!also!functions!as!an!act!of!objectification,!thus!representing!the!will!
to! sovereignty! of! these! groups.101! This! view! has! been! most! powerfully! articulated!
by! legal! anthropologists! Jean! and! John! Comaroff,! who! have! written! about! the!
increasing! use! of! the! law! to! solve! political! disputes! in! the! South! African! context.!
Their! work! has! direct! implications! in! examining! the! spurt! of! free! speech! related!
legal!claims!over!the!last!two!decades!in!Indian!courts.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
98!Butler,!supra!note!96. !
99!!John!L.!Comaroff!and!Jean!Comaroff!(eds.),!Introduction,'to'LAW!AND!DISORDER!IN!THE!POSTCOLONY!25!

(John!L.!Comaroff!&!Jean!Comaroff!eds.!,!Chicago:!Chicago!University!Press,!2006).!
100 !Id!at!26331.!
101!Id!at!35. !

! 40!
B.!THE!GLOBALISATION!OF!HATE!SPEECH:!
!
In! a! 2014! judgment,! the! Supreme! Court! for! the! first! time! used! the! language! of!
dignity!in!the!context!of!hate!speech!claims.!In!fact!this!is!possibly!the!first!time!that!
the!court!is!using!the!internationally!recognized!language!of!!‘hate!speech’.102!!The!
facts!of!this!case!revolved!around!concerns!around!hate!speech!related!to!interstate!
migrant! workers.! The! Supreme! Court! referred! to! Canadian! jurisprudence103! to!
highlight!three!ways!in!which!Canadian!courts!have!approached!the!issue.!The!first!
is! that! courts! must! apply! hate! speech! prohibitions! objectively.! The! second! is! the!
term! ‘hatred’! or! ‘hatred! and! contempt’! in! the! law! should! be! interpreted! narrowly!
and! restricted! to! extreme! manifestations! of! the! emotion! described! by! the! words!
“detestation”! and! “vilification”.! This! would! exclude! speech! that! while! may! be!
repugnant!and!offensive,!do!not!incite!the!level!of!abhorrence,!delegitimization!and!
rejection! that! risks! causing! discrimination! or! harm.! The! third! is! that! the! focus! of!
tribunals! and! courts! should! be! the! effect! of! the! words! in! terms! of! whether! it!
exposed! the! targeted! person! or! group! to! hatred! by! others,! and! not! whether! the!
words!were!repugnant.104!The!scope!of!the!law!should!be!related!to!the!legislative!
objective!of!reducing!discrimination.!!

As!per!the!Canadian!courts’!approach!to!the!issue,!hate!speech!is!not!about!causing!
distress!to!an!individual!or!community,!but!about!laying!the!groundwork!for!later!
attacks! on! a! community,! which! can! range! from! discrimination! to! ostracism,!
segregation,!deportation,!violence,!and!in!extreme!cases,!genocide.105!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
102'Pravasi!Bhalai!Sangathan,'supra!note!9. !
103 ! Saskatchewan! ! (Human! Rights! Commission)! v! Whatcott,' [2013]! 1! S.C.R.! 467! (Can.),! Canada!
(Human!Rights!Commission)!v!Taylor,![1990]!3!S.C.R.!892!(Can.).!The!Saskatchewan!case!dealt!with!
hate!speech!claims!related!to!the!distribution!of!pamphlets!with!homophobic!content.!The!Canadian!
Supreme! Court! distinguished! between! one! set! of! flyers! in! which! the! expression! portrayed! the!
targeted!group!as!a!menace!that!threatens!the!safety!and!well3being!of!others,!and!used!vilifying!and!
derogatory!representations!to!create!a!tone!of!hatred!and!another!set!of!pamphlets!in!which!the!it!
said! that! it! could! not! be! reasonably! found! that! a! reasonable! person,! aware! of! the! relevant! context!
and! circumstances,! would! find! as! exposing! or! likely! to! expose! persons! of! same3sex! orientation! to!
detestation!and!vilification.!The!court!said!that!in!the!latter!set!of!pamphlets,!while!the!expressions!
used!were!offensive!it!did!not!demonstrate!the!hatred!required!by!the!prohibition.!!!
104 !Id!at!6.!
105!Id'at!14. !

! 41!
The!Canadian!Courts’!approach!is!very!similar!to!the!arguments!made!by!the!work!
of! the! philosopher! Jeremy! Waldron,! to! argue! that! hate! speech! law! in! India! should!
distinguish!between!different!types!of!situations,!and!prohibit!only!a!subsection!of!
speech.106! Waldron,! writing! in! the! context! of! the! United! States! hate! speech! law,!
argues!that!courts!should!recognize!hate!speech!claims!in!situations!where!there!is!
harm! to! the! dignity! of! the! individual! or! group! being! targeted! by! hate! speech.107!
Regulating! hate! speech! in! these! cases! will! modify! public! debate,! but! this! is!
acceptable! if! it! is! meant! to! allow! people! to! participate! in! public! life! securely! and!
without! threat.108! Applied! to! the! Indian! context,! Waldron’s! argument! could! be! a!
framework! for! distinguishing! between! speech! that! causes! offence! and! speech! that!
impacts!dignity.!!

The!court!in!the!Pravasi'Bhalai'Sangathan!case109!also!mentions!that!the!doctrine!in!
the! United! States! has! shifted! towards! being! more! speech! protective! in! recent!
years.110! This! approach! will! require! reading! Indian! doctrine! in! the! light! of!
comparative!law!and!existing!international!principles!on!free!speech.!For!instance,!
the!United!Nations!Office!of!the!High!Commissioner!for!Human!Rights!(OCHCR)!has!
identified! guidelines! to! prevent! the! application! of! arbitrary! legal! standards!
pertaining!to!the!incitement!of!racial!or!religious!hatred.!These!are!(1)! The!public!
intent! of! inciting! discrimination,! hostility! or! violence! must! be! present! for! hate!
speech! to! be! penalized! (2)! Any! limitations! on! freedom! of! expression! should! be!
clearly! and! narrowly! defined! and! provided! by! law.! In! addition,! they! must! be!
necessary! and! proportionate! to! the! objective! they! propound! to! achieve,! i.e.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
106!See!Gautam!Bhatia,!The'Supreme'Court'on'Hate'Speech'Again,!INDIAN!CONSTITUTIONAL!LAW!
AND!PHILOSOPHY!BLOG,!(12!MARCH!2014)!
http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/the3supreme3court3on3hate3speech3again/!(last!
visited!Apr.!9,!2014).!
107 !JEREMY!WALDRON,!THE!HARM!IN!HATE!SPEECH,!2012.!
108!Id.!Waldron!states,!“The!idea!that!not!only!do!religious!minorities!have!the!right!to!be!secure!from!

attack!and!from!being!physically!sanctioned!for!their!faith!or!religious!practice;!they!also!have!the!
right!to!be!treated!as!members!of!society!in!good!standing,!with!a!status!and!acceptance!that!enables!
them!to!participate!confidently!in!the!ordinary!routines!and!transactions!of!everyday!life.”!Id'at!219.!
109!Pravasi!Bhalai!Sangathan,!supra!note!9. !
110!The!court!mentions!three!cases!in!support!of!this!–'Beauharnais!v!Illinois,!343!U.S.!250!(1952),!

Brandenburg!v!Ohio,!395!U.S.!444!(1969)!and!R.A.V.!v!City!of!St.!Paul,!Minn.,!505!U.S.!377!(1992).!

! 42!
prohibiting!hate!speech!(3)!Limitations!should!not!threaten!the!exercise!of!the!right!
itself.! The! least! intrusive! means! insofar! as! freedom! of! expression! is! concerned!
should! be! used! in! order! to! prevent! a! chilling! effect! (4)! The! adjudication! of! such!
limitations!should!be!made!by!an!independent!and!impartial!judiciary.!111!

The! problem! with! this! approach! is! that! Indian! hate! speech! law! does! not! map! out!
neatly!onto!hate!speech!as!is!understood!in!the!international!context.!For!instance,!
there! is! a! discussion! in! a! Gujarat! High! Court! case! on! whether! hurt! sentiment! is! a!
claim! recognized! in! civil! law.112! This! case! dealt! with! a! low! budget! Hindi! film!
released! in! 1975! that! became! a! blockbuster! hit.! The! case! was! an! appeal! from! a!
decision! in! a! civil! court! denying! an! injunction! against! the! release! of! the! film.! The!
plaintiff! claimed! that! the! film! Jai! Santoshi! Ma! had! hurt! her! religious! sentiments!
through!the!portraying!of!the!Santoshi!Ma!(the!Goddess!of!Satisfaction).!She!claimed!
that!the!depiction!of!the!Goddess!was!a!distorted!version!of!Hindu!mythology.!!

The!High!Court!examined!the!question!of!whether!hurt!sentiment!is!an!actionable!
tort!that!could!be!decided!by!a!civil!court.!The!court!rejected!the!plaintiff’s!claims,!
holding!that!hurt!religious!sentiment!is!not!an!actionable!tort!recognized!by!the!civil!
court.113! Comparing! this! to! international! principles! on! hate! speech,! it! is! unclear! if!
the! court’s! decision! in! this! case! is! positive,! since! the! claim! to! actionable! tort! was!
dismissed,!or!whether!the!court!was!precluding!a!civil!claim,!thus!strengthening!the!
assumption!that!hate!speech!claims!are!only!actionable!in!criminal!courts.!!

The! Supreme! Court! has! requested! the! Law! Commission! of! India! to! examine!
comparative! law! more! closely.! The! task! before! the! court! is! to! synthesize!
international!principles!around!hate!speech!with!the!doctrine!in!India.!In!the!next!
chapter!I!highlight!the!overarching!principles!around!hate!speech!law!that!emerge!
from!an!analysis!of!hate!speech!decisions!post!independence.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
111 !Joint!Statement,!supra'note!8!at!3.!
112!Ushaben!Navinchandra!Trivedi!v!Bhagyalakshmi!Chitramandir,!A.I.R.!1978!Guj.!13. !
113!Id'at!Para!11. !

! 43!
!

IV:!OVERVIEW!OF!DOCTRINE!

A:!OVERARCHING!PRINCIPLES!

While! there! are! discrepancies! in! the! way! that! courts! have! decided! hate! speech!
cases,!and!it!is!difficult!to!outline!clear!doctrinal!movements,!an!examination!of!hurt!
sentiment! cases! reveals! the! following! broad! principles! that! have! emerged! over! a!
period!of!time.!!
!
1.!Deliberate!and!Malicious!Intention:!
!
The!courts!have!across!these!three!categories,!and!across!the!different!substantive!
sections! held! that! deliberate! intention! has! to! be! inferred! from! the! words! spoken,!
the!place!where!they!were!spoken!and!the!persons!to!whom!they!were!addressed!
and!other!surrounding!circumstances. Courts!have!said!that!where!the!intention!to!
wound! was! premeditated,! deliberate! intention! might! be! inferred.! Deliberate!
intention!may!be!inferred!if!the!offending!words!were!spoken!without!good!faith!by!
a! person! who! entered! into! a! discussion! with! the! primary! purpose! of! insulting! the!
religious!feelings!of!his!listeners.!114!
!
Courts!have!held!that!at!to!establish!malice!as!contemplated!by!section!295A!of!the!
Penal!Code,!it!is!not!necessary!for!the!prosecution!to!prove!that,!the!applicant!bore!
ill!will!or!enmity!against!specific!persons.115!If!the!injurious!act!was!done!voluntarily!
without!a!lawful!excuse,!malice!may!be!presumed.!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
114!Narayan!Das!and!Anr.!v!State,!A.I.R. 1952 Ori. 149.
115 !Baba!Khalil!Ahmad!v!State,!A.I.R.!1960!All.!715.!

! 44!
2.!Form!and!Content:!

The! intention! can! be! inferred! from! the! form! of! content.! The! manner! of! discourse!
and!nature!and!text!of!captions!is!significant.!Courts!are!very!sensitive!to!the!form!of!
speech,! not! just! its! content.! Thus! there! is! room! for! criticism! of! religion,! if! it! is! in!
restrained! language! appearing! to! be! rational! argument.! Similarly! there! is! freedom!
to!express!diverse!viewpoints!and!freedom!of!creativity!and!art!as!long!as!the!mode!
of! delivery! and! the! language! used! does! not! indicate! a! deliberate! and! malicious!
intention! to! hurt! sentiments! or! outrage! feelings.! Similarly,! academic! material! is!
highly!protected!unless!the!language!used!is!crude!or!coarse.!

3.!Content!to!be!Read!as!a!Whole:!

Courts! by! and! large! tend! to! read! the! content! as! a! whole,! and! not! take! a! line! or!
paragraph! out! of! context.! This! is! in! line! with! other! aspects! of! free! speech!
jurisprudence!like!obscenity!related!rulings.!This!is!an!important!principle!as!hate!
speech!claims!are!often!made!based!on!a!portion!of!a!larger!text!or!work.!!

4.!Reasonable!Man!Standard:!

Generally,! the! standard! of! the! reader! or! viewer! is! taken! to! be! of! the! reasonable,!
strong3minded!and!courageous!person,!and!not!the!weak!and!vacillating!mind!that!
scents! danger! in! every! point! of! view.! Courts! have! adopted! this! standard! from! a!
judgment!by!Justice!Vivian!Bose116!where!he!observed!that!the!effect!of!the!words!
must! be! judged! from! the! standards! of! reasonable,! strong3minded,! firm! and!
courageous! men,! and! not! those! of! weak! and! vacillating! minds,! nor! of! those! who!
scent!danger!in!every!hostile!point!of!view.117!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
116 !Bhagvati Charan Shukla v Provincial Government, A.I.R. 1947 Nagpur 1.!
117!Manzar!Sayeed!Khan!v!State!of!Maharashtra,!(2009)!12!S.C.C.!157!(India). !

! 45!
5.!Proximity!and!Nexus:!

Courts!can!also!take!into!account!the!state!of!feelings!between!communities!at!the!
relevant! time.! However,! the! anticipated! danger! has! to! be! proximate! with! a! direct!
nexus!between!the!anticipated!danger!and!the!expression.!The!nexus!should!not!be!
remote,!conjectural!or!far3fetched.!

6.!Truth!as!a!Defense:!

Truth!is!not!recognized!as!an!absolute!defense.!Courts!do!recognize!that!sometimes!
the! truth! has! the! potential! to! cause! more! damage! in! the! context! of! hate! speech!
claims.! However,! courts! will! protect! truth! claims,! when! they! are! shown! in! the!
proper!light!(i.e.!the!form!is!important)!In!fact,!in!Gopal'Vinayak'Godse118,!a!case!that!
related!to!an!artistic!work,!where!the!court!reiterated!the!doctrine!on!section!153A,!
the! court! held! that! if! the! writing! is! calculated! to! promote! feelings! of! enmity! or!
hatred,!it!is!no!defense!to!a!charge!under!Section!153A!that!the!writing!contains!a!
truthful! account! of! past! events! or! is! otherwise! supported! by! good! authority.! The!
Court!observed!that!in!fact,!greater!the!truth,!greater!the!impact!of!the!writing!on!
the!minds!of!its!readers,!if!the!writing!is!otherwise!calculated!to!produce!mischief.!

7.!Defiling!of!Sacred!Images!and!Objects:!!

Courts! recognize! that! any! object! that! is! considered! sacred! by! a! community! as!
potential! sites! of! claims! of! hurt! sentiment.! Courts! are! unlikely! to! protect! such!
speech!as!being!expressions!of!social!or!religious!reform.!

8.!Academic!and!Scholarly!Work:!

While!this!is!not!formal!doctrine,!the!content!of!works!of!‘academic’!or!‘scholarly’!in!
character! are! usually! protected! under! Article! 19(1)! a.! The! only! exception! to! this!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
118'Gopa!Vinayak!Godse,'supra'note'67. !

! 46!
rule! is! when! the! courts! have! doubts! about! the! whether! the! work! is! scholarly! or!
academic.! Aware! that! there! are! situations! where! authors! could! pass! off! work! of!
dubious!quality!as!scholarly,!courts!have!been!vigilant!to!spot!these!cases.!This!is!in!
turn!linked!to!the!emphasis!that!courts!place!on!the!tenor!of!language!that!is!used.!If!
the! tenor! of! language! is! perceived! to! be! vituperative,! coarse! and! therefore! not!
academic,! then! courts! have! treated! these! cases! differently.! If! the! academic! or!
historical!work!concerned!uses!offensive!and!abusive!language,!it!will!fall!outside!of!
the!protection!of!the!law.119!

Courts!have!taken!into!account!the!audience!for!who!the!academic!work!is!targeted.!
They! have! differentiated! on! the! basis! of! the! maturity! of! the! audience.! This! is!
especially!the!case!in!material!that!is!part!of!the!curriculum!of!schools!or!colleges.120!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
119! Harnam! Das! v! State! of! U.P.,! A.I.R.! 1959! All.! 538.! The! court! said! that! in! this! case! the! author! had!
stepped!far!beyond!these!boundaries.!He!had!characterized!the!entire!Sikh!community!as!‘low!class!
people’,!and!said!that!Sikhism!was!a!religion!of!‘self3seekers,!cheats!and!frauds”.!
120 !Nand!Kishore!Singh!and!Anr.!v!State!of!Bihar!and!Anr.,!A.I.R.!1986!Pat.!98.!

! 47!
B.!THE!PHILOSOPHY!OF!COMPROMISE:!

It! is! significant! though! that! the! court,! while! requesting! the! Law! Commission! to!
examine!this!issue,!observed!that!the!problem!with!the!hate!speech!regime!was!the!
lack!of!enforcement,!which!should!be!in!consonance!with!the!proposition!salus'rei'
publicae'suprema'lex'(safety!of!the!state!is!the!supreme!law).121!This!observation!is!
a! remnant! of! the! first! strand! of! thought! that! runs! through! hate! speech! doctrine,!
articulated! as! the! constitutional! value! of! ordered! security.! Political! commentator!
Pratap! Bhanu! Mehta! points! out! that! almost! all! states! formally! uphold! the!
Hobbesenian!idea!that!the!state!is!empowered!to!make!judgments!when!society!is!
imperiled,!thus!circumscribing!the!scope!of!freedom!by!the!reason!of!state.122!Mehta!
argues!that!one!of!the!justifications!for!the!regulation!of!hate!speech!is!the!fear!that!
such!speech,!by!playing!on!the!passion!of!fear,!distorts!the!functioning!of!reason.123!!

John!Stuart!Mill,!in!his!classic!treatise!“On!Liberty”,!discusses!at!length!how!curbing!
speech! would! be! deleterious! to! development! of! new! ideas.! Even! Mill,! one! of! the!
leading! proponents! of! liberalism! acknowledged! that! in! certain! circumstances,!
speech!could!be!restricted.!For!instance!Mill!warns!against!intemperate!discussion!
when!it!used!against!the!comparatively!defenseless.!!

“The' worst' offence' of' this' kind' which' can' be' committed' by' a' polemic,' is' to'
stigmatise' those' who' hold' the' contrary' opinion' as' bad' and' immoral' men.' To'
calumny' of' this' sort,' those' who' hold' any' unpopular' opinion' are' peculiarly'
exposed' because' they' are' in' general' few' and' uninfluential,' and' nobody' but'
themselves'feels'much'interested'in'seeing'justice'done'to'them.124!!

Mill’s! concern! is! not! so! much! about! insult! to! religion! or! blasphemy! as! unpopular!
thought.!He!goes!on!to!say!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
121 !Id.!
122!Mehta,'supra!note!17!at!311.!

123 !Mehta,'supra!note!17!at!313.!
124 !JOHN!STUART!MILL,!ON!LIBERTY,!(2006)!at!62.!

! 48!
 “In' general,' opinions' contrary' to' those' commonly' received' can' only' obtain' a'
hearing'by'studied'moderation'of'language,'and'the'most'cautious'avoidance'of'
unnecessary'offence,'from'which'they'hardly'ever'deviate'even'in'a'slight'degree'
from' losing' ground:' while' unmeasured' vituperation' employed' on' the' side' of'
prevailing' opinion,' really' does' deter' people' from' professing' contrary' opinions,'
and' from' listening' to' people' who' profess' them.' For' the' interest,' therefore,' of'
truth' and' justice,' it' is' far' more' important' to' restrain' this' employment' of'
vituperative' language' than' the' other;' and,' for' example,' if' it' were' necessary' to'
choose,' there' would' be' much' more' need' to' discourage' offensive' attacks' on'
infidelity,'then'on'religion.”125!!!

Mill’s! views! focus! on! the! need! to! encourage! divergent! opinion,! framed! in! the!
language!of!mainstream!opinion!and!opinion!that!diverges!from!the!mainstream.!He!
argues! that! speech! that! needs! protection! is! offensive! language! when! it! is! used! by!
the!mainstream!against!the!divergent!opinion,!and!not!the!other!way!round.!!!

In! India! debates! around! free! speech! that! have! been! influenced! by! the! attempts! of!
the! constitutional! framers! to! reinforce! and! reinvent! forms! of! liberal! individualism!
in! a! context! suffused! with! communitarian! values.126! Rajeev! Bhargava,! drawing! on!
the! work! of! Granville! Austin,! argues! that! the! Indian! constitution! reflects!
compromise,!accommodation,!and!to!an!extent!Hegelian!reconciliation!exemplified!
through! a! conjunctive! (as! opposed! to! a! mutually! exclusive)! mode! of! thought.! This!
spirit! of! compromise! was! reflected! in! the! remarkable! absence! of! any! serious,! or!
irresolvable!dispute!in!the!Constitutional!Assembly!Debates.!!

It!is!this!spirit!of!compromise!that!we!see!reflected!in!the!manner!in!which!courts!in!
India!have!tried!balancing!interests!between!constant!between!the!value!of!freedom!
of! expression! and! the! harms! of! the! threat! to! public! order,! and! the! claim! to! hurt!
sentiment.! The! courts! have! dealt! with! highly! contested! claims! ranging! from!
whether!those!advocating!atheism!can!lawfully!break!idols!of!gods127,!and!whether!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
125!Id. !
126 !Bhargava,!supra!note!20!at!19.!
127!S.!Veerabadran!Chettiar!v!E.V.!Ramaswami!Naicker!&!Ors,!A.I.R.!1958!S.C.!1032!(India),!In!Re!P.!

Ramaswami!v!Unknown!1962!Cri.L.J.!146.!

! 49!
there!is!one!legitimate!version!of!religious!and!cultural!narrative128!to!whether!the!
portrayal! of! communal! violence! is! acceptable! if! it! has! educational! value129,! and!
whether!truth!is!can!be!an!absolute!a!legitimate!to!hate!speech!claims.130!!
!
The!court’s!balancing!of!interests!can!be!seen!in!the!two!strands!of!thought!that!run!
through!hate!speech!doctrine.!The!first!is!described!by!Justice!Krishna!Iyer!in!Lalai'
Singh!Yadav131!as!“the!constitutional!value!of!ordered!security.”!the!specter!of!public!
disorder! and! the! constitutional! value! of! ordered! security! work! in! tandem,!
producing!the!strongest!justification!for!the!way!the!court!has!ruled!in!these!cases.!
Iyer,!in!his!judgment!identifies!ordered!security!as!a!constitutional!value!that!is!to!
be! safeguarded! and! courts! should! give! deference! to! the! state! if! their! intent! is! to!
protect! safety! and! peace.! Here! the! principle! of! ordered! security,! enunciated! as! a!
positive!principle,!without!which!creativity!and!freedom!are!meaningless.!!One!must!
evaluate!the!decisions!of!the!court!with!this!legal!principle!in!mind.!!This!principle!
echoes!the!words!of!Jawaharlal!Nehru,!when!he!defended!the!enactment!of!the!First!
Amendment!in!Parliament.132!Both!Nehru!and!Iyer!identify!the!proposition!as!being!
that!the!possibility!of!the!constitutional!freedom!to!speech!can!only!be!guaranteed!
through! public! order! and! safety! that! will! help! secure! the! freedom! of! normal!
impulses.!

The! second! is! from! Justice! Bheemasankaran’s! dissent! in! Veerabrahmam.! The!
principles!that!Justice!Bheemasankaran!elaborates!are:!

1. Curbs! on! freedom! of! expression! are! a! greater! evil! than! any! consequences!
that!may!follow!by!exercise!of!such!freedom!

2. One!must!not!be!afraid!of!error!as!long!as!truth!is!free!to!combat!it!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
128!Lalai!Singh!Yadav,'supra!note!70,'Ushaben!Navinchandra!Trivedi!v!Bhagyalakshmi!Chitramandir,!
A.I.R.!1978!Guj.!13.!
129 !Ramesh!s/o!Chotalal!Dalal!v!Union!of!India,!A.I.R.!1988!S.C.!775!(India).!
!Anand!Chintamani!Dighe!v!State!of!Maharashtra,!(2002) 2 Mah. L.J. 14, Gopal!Vinayak!Godse,!
130

supra!note!67.!
131 !Lalai!Singh!Yadav,!supra'note!70!at!Para!13.!
132 !See'discussion!infra!Part!II.B.!

! 50!
This!principle!is!echoed!in!the!judge’s!call!for!“greater!tolerance!of!intolerance”!even!
in! a! society! where! violence! between! religious! communities! is! prevalent.! 133! This!
principle! is! also! reflected! in! the! language! of! Justice! Krishna! Iyer,! who! clearly!
recognizes! tolerance! as! being! a! necessity! and! a! feature! of! Indian! polity.! Iyer!
describes! this! in! the! Lalai' Singh' Yadav! case! just! after! he! talks! of! the! principle! of!
ordered!liberty.!!!

..India'is'a'land'of'cultural'contrarities,'cogexistence'of'many'religions'and'antig
religions,'rationalism'and'bigotry,'primitive'cults'and'materialist'doctrines.'The'
compulsions'of'history'and'geography'and'the'assault'of'modern'science'on'the'
retreating'forces'of'medieval'waysgga'mosaic'like'tapestry'of'lovely'and'unlovely'
strandsggghave'made'large'and'liberal'tolerance'of'mutual'criticism,'even'though'
expressed'in'intemperate'diction,'a'necessity'of'life134!

Justice!Krishna!Iyer’s!description!above,!along!with!Justice!Bhimasankar’s!dissent!in!
Veerabrahmam!show!us!that!there!is!a!robust!and!free!speech!expanding!doctrinally!
strand!running!through!the!50s!to!the!70s!that!parallels!the!American!‘market!place!
of! ideas’! and! the! idea! of! American! society! portrayed! in! cases! like! Cohen! v!
California135!where!the!norm!is!to!protect!free!speech.!!

These! two! competing! strands! of! thought! result! in! a! compromise! that! is! based! on!
pragmatic!decisions,!and!on!the!specific!facts!and!circumstances!of!the!case.!This!is!
exemplified!Justice!Krishna!Iyer!in!the!Lalai'Singh'Yadav'case!

In'the'interests'of'public'order'and'public'peace,'public'power'comes'into'play'
not'because'the'heterodox'few'must'be'suppressed'to'placate'the'orthodox'many'
but' because' everyone's' cranium' must' be' saved' from' mayhem' before' his'

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
133!“!.I!am prepared to admit that conditions in India are different from those in other parts of the civilized
world in regard to religious beliefs, and that there are classes of people in this country prone to fanaticism,
bigotry and superstition. But all the same, we must not forget that we are in a secular State and cannot
object to freethinking. As a people, we must get used as a result of the enjoyment of our fundamental rights
to greater tolerance even of intolerance...” N. Veerabrahmam v State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1959 A.P.
572.
134'Lalai!Singh!Yadav,!supra'note!70!at!Para!19.!

!Cohen v California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). The facts of this case involved the conviction of Cohen for
135

wearing a jacket with the words “Fuck the Draft” outside a Los Angeles courthouse. The U.S. Supreme
Court upheld Cohen’s claim to free speech under the First Amendment. !

! 51!
 cerebrum'can'have'chance'to'simmer.'Hatred,'outrage'and'like'feelings'of'large'
groups' may' have' cryptogviolent' proneness' and' the' State,' in' its' wellggrounded'
judgment,'may'prefer'to'stop'the'circulation'of'the'book'to'preserve'safety'and'
peace' in' society.' No' enlightened' State,' would' use' this' power' to' suppress'
advanced' economic' views,' radical' rational' criticisms' or' fearless' exposure' of'
primitive'obscurantism'but'ordered'security'is'a'constitutional'value'wisely'to'be'
safeguarded'if'progressives'and'regressives'are'to'peacefully'coexist.'This'is'the'
spirit'of's.'99A'of'the'Code.'The'actual'exercise'will'depend'not'on'doctrinnaire'
logic'but'practical'wisdom.'136'
!

It! is! this! pragmatism! of! the! courts,! rather! than! doctrinaire! logic! that! ultimately!
drives! the! court’s! decisions.! An! illustration! of! this! pragmatic! logic! works! can! be!
seen! in! the! High! Court! and! Supreme! Court! judgments! in! the! Baragur'
Ramachandrappa137,! case.! ! The! court! was! dealing! with! a! claim! to! hurt! sentiment!
based!on!a!Kannada!novel!Dharmakarana!that,!in!refers!to!two!highly!revered!social!
reformers!founder!of!the!Sharana!cult!who!have!a!flowing!among!the!Veera!Shaiva!
community! in! the! state! of! Karnataka.! In! the! novel,! one! of! the! social! reformers! is!
portrayed! as! not! having! a! legitimate! father! and! the! other! as! pregnant! without! a!
husband.! The! narrative! places! these! events! in! the! context! of! the! characters! being!
shunned!by!mainstream!society!thus!influencing!their!rebellion!against!mainstream!
values.!!

The! controversy! over! the! book! led! to! public! protests! and! an! uproar! in! the! state!
legislature.! Both! the! High! Court! and! Supreme! Court! ignoring! doctrine! that! would!
protect! the! author’s! right! to! speech,! try! negotiating! with! him! to! remove! the!
offending! portions! of! the! book.! When! the! author! refused,! the! courts! decide! to!
uphold!the!ban.!They!then!tweak!the!doctrine!citing!the!harm!that!the!court,!holding!
that! while! the! content! of! the! book! is! acceptable! for! a! certain! class! of! readers! (the!
intelligentsia)!is!not!for!another!class!of!readers!(lay!people).!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
136 !Lalai!Singh!Yadav,'supra'note'70'at!Para!13.'!
137!Baragur!Ramachandrappa!&!Ors.!v!State!of!Karnataka!&!Anr,!(2007)!5!S.C.C.!11,!Baragur!

Ramachandrappa!&!Ors.!v.!State!of!Karnataka!&!Anr,!1998!Cri!L.J.!3639.!!

! 52!
The!hate!speech!doctrine!of!Indian!courts,!though!not!always!internally!consistent,!
reflects!a!modern!juridical!version!of!the!strand!of!Indian!liberal!values!based!on!a!
philosophy!of!accommodation!and!compromise.!The!doctrine!is!a!synthesis!of!two!
competing! strands! of! thought,! inflected! with! a! spirit! of! pragmatism! and!
compromise.!

! 53!
 V.!CONCLUSION!

The! Indian! courts,! in! dealing! with! hate! speech! cases! have,! in! the! spirit! of!
accommodation! and! compromise! engaged! in! a! balancing! of! harms! and! values.!
Courts! have! tried! to! demarcate! ways! in! which! to! identity! specific! kinds! of! speech!
that!are!most!likely!to!cause!harm.!This!could!be!speech!that!is!intemperate,!speech!
that!targets!religious!or!sacred!images!and!figures,!speech!which!has!deliberate!and!
malicious!intention!of!outraging!feelings!of!enmity!between!communities.!!

Legal! academic! Dan! Kahan,! writing! about! a! U.S.! Supreme! Court! deeply! divided! on!
ideological!lines,!draws!upon!studies!of!cultural!cognition!to!argue!that!individuals!
are! predisposed! to! fit! their! perceptions! of! policy! and! relevant! facts! to! their! group!
commitments.138!!One’s!view!of!the!evolution!of!the!doctrine!of!hate!speech!will!be!
colored! by! one’s! political! views,! and! opinions! on! the! values! that! the! court! should!
protect.!One!could!either!look!at!this!bazaar!as!built!on!a!solid!foundation!of!years!of!
co3existence! and! ‘tolerance! of! intolerance’,! or! as! an! inflammable! structure! that!
could!burn!down!at!the!slightest!provocation.!!

The!standard!of!the!“reasonable,!strong3minded,!firm!and!courageous!man”,!framed!
by!Justice!Vivian!Bose!in!1947,!and!reiterated!by!courts!is!a!conscious!move!away!
from! the! latter! view.! This! standard! moves! away! not! only! from! the! figure! of! the!
easily!excitable!colonial!subject,!but!also!the!subject!of!the!50s!haunted!by!Partition,!
the!secessionist!subject!of!60s,!and!the!militant!subject!of!the!80s.!!

In!order!to!address!the!current!problem!of!the!avalanche!of!claims!of!hurt!sentiment!
it! is! important! that! the! public! debate! pick! up! on! the! values! that! the! court! had!
recognized! include! artistic! freedom! and! creativity! tolerance! for! a! diversity! of!
viewpoints,!the!right!of!the!listener!to!receive!information!speech!that!has!a!social!
purpose!rational!and!scientific!criticism.!It!is!also!important!that!we!recognize!that!
the! doctrine! in! India! is! a! result! of! a! principle! of! compromise! and! accommodation.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
138!Dan!Kahan,!Foreword'to'Supreme'Court'2010'Term:'Neutral'Principles,'Motivated'Cognition'and'

Some'Problems'for'Constitutional'Law,!125!HARV.!L.!REV.!1,!(2011312).!

! 54!
Any!demand!to!reform!the!law!must!be!seen!within!this!framework.!Thus!the!move!
should! be! towards! balancing! harms! and! values! and! moving! towards! a! legal!
framework!that!is!speech!protective!yet!protects!individuals!and!communities!from!
the!harms!in!hate!speech.!These!harms!need!to!be!viewed!in!the!context!of!specific!
facts!and!circumstances,!and!the!prevailing!political!situation!in!a!specific!location.!!

The! evolution! of! this! speech! protective! standard! has! been! strengthened! by! the!
court’s!adoption!of!the!‘spark!in!a!powder!keg’!test!which!limits!hate!speech!claims!
to! instances! where! one! can! clearly! establish! that! there! us! a! direct! nexus! between!
the!hurt!sentiment!claim!and!the!anticipated!danger!of!violence.139!As!per!this!test,!
the!expression!of!thought!should!be!intrinsically!dangerous!to!the!public!interest.!In!
other! words,! the! expression! should! be! inseparably! locked! up! with! the! action!
contemplated! like! the! equivalent! of! a! “spark! in! a! power! keg”.! This! test! will! help!
filter!hate!speech!claims!that!have!a!direct!nexus!to!the!threat!of!public!order!and!
those!that!do!not.!!

The!doctrinal!move!from!speakers’!rights!to!listeners’!rights,!and!the!move!towards!
a!dignity3based!analysis!of!hate!speech!claims!will!help!filter!these!claims!further.!!

Seen! in! this! light! demands! of! doing! away! with! hate! speech! altogether! are!
impractical,! and! go! against! the! spirit! of! pragmatism! and! accommodation! that!
underlies!the!history!and!doctrinal!developments!that!I!have!outlined!in!this!paper.!
Hate!speech!debates!reflect!the!larger!debates!around!free!speech!in!India,!and!free!
speech! absolutism! has! no! roots! in! India’s! constitutional! history! or! legal! doctrine.!
Instead! we! should! draw! on! the! existing! tradition! of! accommodation! within! our!
constitutional! history! and! the! pragmatic! strand! in! legal! doctrine! to! evolve! hate!
speech! standards! that! are! narrowly! defined,! necessary! and! proportionate! to! the!
objective!of!maintaining!relations!between!communities!and!protect!the!dignity!of!
vulnerable!groups.!This!in!turn!will!help!bring!Indian!doctrine!on!hate!speech!in!line!
with!existing!global!principles.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
139 !Sujato!Bhadra!v!State!of!West!Bengal,!(2006)!39!A.I.C.!239.!!

! 55!
BIBLIOGRAPHY!

Articles:!

Arudra!Burra,!Parliament'and'the'First'Amendment'in'India:'The'Constitution'(First'
Amendment'Act),'1951,!8!(Dec.!2008),!
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2052659!

Asad!Ali!Ahmed,!Specters'of'Macaulay:'Blasphemy,'the'Indian'Penal'Code,'and'
Pakistan’s'Postcolonial'Predicament,'in!CENSORSHIP!IN!SOUTH!ASIA:!CULTURAL!
REGULATION!FROM!SEDITION!TO!SEDUCTION!1723205,!173!(William!Mazzarella!&!
Raminder!Kaur,!eds.,!2009)!

Dan!Kahan,!Foreword'to'Supreme'Court'2010'Term:'Neutral'Principles,'Motivated'
Cognition'and'Some'Problems'for'Constitutional'Law,!125!HARV.!L.!REV.!1,!(2011312)!

Neeti!Nair,!Beyond'the'‘Communal’'1920s:'The'Problem'of'Intention,'Communal'
Pragmatism,'and'the'Making'of'Section'295A'of'the'Indian'Penal'Code,!50!INDIAN!
ECONOMIC!SOCIAL!HISTORY!REVIEW,!317!(2013)!at!
http://ier.sagepub.com/content/50/3/317,!DOI:!10.1177/0019464613494622!

Pratap!Bhanu!Mehta,!Passion!and!Constraint:!Courts!and!the!Regulation!of!Religious!
Meaning,' in! POLITICS! AND! ETHICS! OF! THE! INDIAN! CONSTITUTION,! 3113353! (Rajeev!
Bhargava,!ed.!1998)!

Saba!Mahmood,!Religion,'Reason'and'Secular'Affect'in!IS!CRITIQUE!SECULAR?:!
BLASPHEMY,!INJURY!AND!FREE!SPEECH,!(Talal!Asad!et!al.,!eds.!2009)!

Shohini!Ghosh,!Censorship'Myths'and'Imagined'Harms,!Sarai'Reader'(Book'4):'Crisis'
Media,!4473454!(Feb!1,!2004)!available!at!
http://preview.sarai.net/journal/04_pdf/58shohini.pdf!!

Talal!Asad,!Free'Speech,'Blasphemy'and'Secular'Criticism,!in!IS!CRITIQUE!SECULAR?:!
BLASPHEMY,!INJURY!AND!FREE!SPEECH,!(Talal!Asad!et!al.,!eds.!2009)!

Veena!Das,!Of'M.F.'Husain'and'an'Impossible'Love'in!BAREFOOT!ACROSS!THE!NATION:!
MAQBOOL!FIDA!HUSAIN!AND!THE!IDEA!OF!INDIA!1213122!(Sumathy!Ramaswamy,!ed.,!
2011)!

Books:!

CHARLES!HENRY!ALEXANDROWICZ,!CONSTITUTIONAL!DEVELOPMENTS!IN!INDIA,!47349!(1957)!!

FRANCIS!LUDLOW!HOLT,!LAW!OF!LIBEL,!(Butterworth!and!Sons!1816),!London,!2nd!Ed.!
(1816).!

GRANVILLE!AUSTIN,!THE!INDIAN!CONSTITUTION:!CORNERSTONE!OF!A!NATION,!69!(1966).!

H.V.!HANDE,!AMBEDKAR!AND!THE!MAKING!OF!THE!INDIAN!CONSTITUTION,!69!(2009)!

! 56!
INDIAN!LAW!COMMISSIONERS,!A!PENAL!CODE!PUBLISHED!BY!COMMAND!OF!THE!GOVERNOR!
GENERAL!IN!COUNCIL,!102!(2002)!

JEREMY!WALDRON,!THE!HARM!IN!HATE!SPEECH,!2012!

JOHN!HART!EALY,!DEMOCRACY!AND!DISTRUST,!(1980)!

JOHN!L.!AUSTIN,!HOW!TO!DO!THINGS!WITH!WORDS,!(J.!O.!Urmson!and!Marina!Sbisa,!eds.,!
2nd!ed.,!1975).!

JOHN!STUART!MILL,!ON!LIBERTY,!(2006)!

JUDITH!BUTLER,!EXCITABLE!SPEECH:!A!POLITICS!OF!THE!PERFORMATIVE,!(1997)!!

MARI! J.! MATSUDA,! CHARLES! R.! LAWRENCE! III,! RICHARD! DELGADO! &! KIMBERLY! WILLIAMS!
CRENSHAW,! WORDS! THAT! WOUND:! CRITICAL! RACE! THEORY,! ASSAULTATIVE! SPEECH! AND! THE!
FIRST!AMENDMENT,!(1993)!

PARLIAMENT!FOR!THE!PEOPLE:!SPEECHES!BY!ERA!SEZHIYAN,!5,!6!(2011)!

Rajeev!Bhargava,!Introduction!to!POLITICS!AND!ETHICS!OF!THE!INDIAN!CONSTITUTION,!12!
(Rajeev!Bhargava!ed.,!2008).!!

RAJEEV!DHAVAN,!HARASSING!HUSAIN:!USES!AND!ABUSES!OF!THE!LAW!OF!HATE!SPEECH,'(Mar.!
2007)!

William!Mazzarella!&!Raminder!Kaur,!Introduction'to!CENSORSHIP!IN!SOUTH!ASIA:!
CULTURAL!REGULATION!FROM!SEDITION!TO!SEDUCTION!1723205,!(William!Mazzarella!&!
Raminder!Kaur,!eds.,!Indiana:!Indiana!University!Press,!2009)!

Newspapers,!Magazines!and!Online!News!Sources:!

Penguin'India'to'Destroy'Doniger’s'Controversial'Book'‘The'Hindus:'An'Alternative'
History’,!SAMAY!LIVE,!Feb.!12,!2014,!at!http://global.factiva.com.ezp3
prod1.hul.harvard.edu/ha/default.aspx,!Document!!
ATSAML00201402102EA2c0000c!

Shivam!Vij,!Gag!Reflex:!Lessons!in!How!Not!to!Deal!with!Online!Hate!Speech,!
CARAVAN!MAGAZINE,!(Oct.!1,!2012),!available!at!
http://www.caravanmagazine.in/perspectives/gag3reflex!

Presentations:!

Arun!K.!Thiruvengadam,!The!Interplay!of!the!Universal!and!the!Particular!in!the!
Evolution!of!the!Constitutional!Right!to!Free!Speech!in!India:!180031950!(Feb.!23,!
2012)!(unpublished!manuscript,!available!with!author)!

Lawrence!Liang,!Alternative!Law!Forum,!paper!presented!at!the!Asian!College!of!
Journalism,!Chennai,!Censorship!and!the!Problematic!of!Hate!Speech,!(Aug.!2003)!!

! 57!
!

Reports!and!Statements:!

43RD!LAW!COMMISSION!REPORT!ON!OFFENCES!AGAINST!THE!NATIONAL!SECURITY,!12!(Aug.!31,!
1971),!available!at!http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1350/Report43.pdf!

Coordination!of!Democratic!Rights!Organisations,!The'Terror'of'Law:'UAPA'and'the'
Myth'of'National'Security,!New!Delhi,!April!2012!

COORDINATION!OF!DEMOCRATIC!RIGHTS!ORGANISATIONS,!THE!TERROR!OF!LAW:!UAPA!AND!THE!
MYTH!OF!NATIONAL!SECURITY,!(2012).!

Joint! Statement! Githu! Muigai,! Special! Rapporteur! on! Contemporary! Forms! of!
Racism,!Racial!Discrimination,!Xenophobia!and!Related!Intolerance,!Asma!Jahangir,!
Special! Rapporteur! on! Freedom! of! Religion! or! Belief,! and! Frank! La! Rue,! Special!
Rapporteur! on! the! Promotion! and! Protection! of! the! Right! to! Freedom! of! Opinion!
and! Expression,! Freedom! of! Expression! and! Incitement! to! Racial! or! Religious!
Hatred,!United!Nations!Office!of!the!High!Commissioner!for!Human!Rights!(OHCHR)!
side! event,! Durban! Review! Conference,! Geneva! (Apr.! 22,! 2009).!
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/docs/SRJointstatement22April09.
pdf!!

REPORT!OF!WORKING!GROUP!OF!NATIONAL!INTEGRATION!COUNCIL!TO!STUDY!REPORTS!ON!THE!
COMMISSIONS!OF!INQUIRY!ON!COMMUNAL!RIOTS,!20,!59,!71,!(2007),!available!at!
http://mha.nic.in/hindi/sites/upload_files/mhahindi/files/pdf/NIC3W3Group.pdf!

THE!PARLIAMENTARY!DEBATES,!OFFICIAL!REPORT,!PART!II,!9626!(May!29,!1951).!

Websites!and!Blogposts:!

Ajay!Skaria,!Violence'and'Laughter,!KAFILA!BLOG!(MAY.!25,!2012)!
http://kafila.org/2012/05/25/violence3and3laughter3ajay3skaria3on3the3
ambedkar3cartoon3controversy/,!(last!visited!Apr.!9,!2014)!

Gautam!Bhatia,!The'Supreme'Court'on'Hate'Speech'Again,!INDIAN!CONSTITUTIONAL!
LAW!AND!PHILOSOPHY!BLOG,!(12!MARCH!2014)!
http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/the3supreme3court3on3hate3
speech3again/!(last!visited!Apr.!9,!2014)!

Lawrence!Liang,!Legal'Notice'to'Penguin'India'for'Violation'of'Rights'of'Readers,!
KAFILA!BLOG,!(FEB.!17,!2014),!http://kafila.org/2014/02/17/legal3notice3to3
penguin3books3india3for3violation3of3rights3of3readers/,!(last!visited!Mar.!18,!
2014).!

! 58!