Both Houses of the Karnataka Legislature recently passed the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, which is the first such legislation in the country. The debates on the Bill in both the state Assembly and Legislative Council, however, seemed lacklustre, even as the proposed law touches upon the lofty ideals of democracy and constitutionalism, at the heart of which is the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.During the debates, there was barely any acknowledgment of the global cultural shifts, particularly among the younger generations, where public affronts based on religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, caste, gender, sexual orientation, or other identity markers are increasingly deemed unacceptable.Nor was there any invocation of the celebrated champions of free speech, like the French writer Voltaire, and their views.The discussions unfolded along predictable partisan lines. The Siddaramaiah-led Congress government defended its legislation as a necessary response to rising hate speech and hate crimes, especially in the age of social media. The principal Opposition BJP slammed it, warning that the law was “vague, unconstitutional and vulnerable to misuse”, likening it to a return to the “excesses” of the Emergency era.The Bill, passed by both the Houses during the just-concluded winter session of the state Legislature, now awaits the assent of the Governor amid appeals from the BJP to withhold his approval.According to government sources, the Bill was brought by the Siddaramaiah government at the instance of the Congress leadership to address what it views as the growing incidence of hate and enmity, driven largely by the reach and speed of the internet and social media platforms.The law seeks to “curb and prevent dissemination, publication or promotion of hate speech and hate crimes, which cause disharmony and hatred in society, against a person or group of persons or organisations, and provide punishment for such crimes”.Story continues below this adThe law allows its invocation for bias expressed through actions or words on grounds including religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability, or tribal identity.Two provisions of the Bill have especially generated heat. First, it prescribes imprisonment of up to seven years for repeat offences — significantly more stringent than punishments under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Comparable provisions under the BNS, such as Section 196 (promoting enmity), Section 299 (outraging religious feelings through malicious acts), Section 352 (intentional insult), and Section 353 (statements for public mischief), have lighter penalties.Second, offences under the Bill are classified as non-bailable. This marks a sharp departure from existing provisions, under which bail is often granted due to the lower maximum punishments.Hate speech in social media ageBy all accounts, the explosion of information technology and social media has resulted in a spike of hate speech cases, especially online, previously defined by the IPC and BNS laws under provisions for intentional insults, outraging of religious feelings, mischievous statements and promoting enmity among communities.Story continues below this adSuch cases originating on social media increased from 130 in 2020 to 994 in 2025 (up to November 30) in the state, according to data compiled by the Karnataka Police. The cases linked specifically to hate speech doubled from 39 in 2022 to 84 in 2024, which stood at 77 by the end of November 2025.Despite various reservations expressed by sections of the police and civil society, particularly about the ambiguity of definitions, the Bill was tabled, debated, and passed by both Houses.“What is not covered in the BNS, we have brought into this Bill,” state Home Minister G Parameshwara said while piloting the legislation.Assembly, Council debatesThe debate in the Assembly was short-lived as the Bill was passed soon after its introduction amid protests by the BJP MLAs, especially from coastal Karnataka, a region accounting for most of the hate-linked incidents in the state. Of the 130 cases recorded in 2020, 54 were from coastal districts while in 2025, the region accounted for 320 of 994 cases.Story continues below this adThe Congress MLAs maintained that the proposed law did not violate Article 19 and instead fell squarely within the “reasonable restrictions” permitted under Article 19(2). The BJP leaders countered them, alleging that the Bill was designed to target political opponents and silence dissent.Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Assembly, R Ashoka, attacked the Bill, saying it intended to “make Hitlers out of the police”. “This is a Bill that seems to have come to the mind of the Home Minister when it did not seem necessary for the makers of the Constitution. They have introduced terms like mental pain and creation of feelings of hate as constituting a hate speech,” he argued.The disruptions in the Assembly meant that substantive arguments were largely deferred to the Legislative Council, which saw a considerably more detailed debate, with 23 speakers from both the Congress and the BJP articulating their positions.In the Council, invoking the Constitution as the “Bhagavad Gita of the country”, BJP MLC K S Naveen said, “Babasaheb Ambedkar gave fundamental rights to all citizens. Freedom of speech and expression is the foundation of democracy. This freedom does not exist in dictatorships.”Story continues below this adHe argued that the Bill amounted to the government dictating what citizens could or could not say, placing excessive discretionary power in the hands of executive magistrates and police officers functioning under the political executive.BJP leader and MLC C T Ravi described the Bill as “a dangerous weapon for political retribution.” He cited landmark Supreme Court judgments — Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras (1950), Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi (1950), Sakal Papers vs Union of India (1961), and Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) — to argue that freedom of speech formed part of the Constitution’s basic structure.“The definition of hate speech (in the Bill) is vague and emotion-based. Who decides what causes emotional distress? Police officers? This gives a free licence to the administration to target rivals,” Ravi argued.He warned that even forwarding content on social media without malicious intent could attract prosecution, potentially criminalising ordinary WhatsApp users.Story continues below this adThe debate took a sharp ideological turn when Ravi delved into the distinction between religion and dharma, asserting the moral universality of Hindu dharma and questioning whether criticism of religious doctrines could be criminalised under the Bill. “One religion is identified with the global phenomenon of terrorism. When that religion is analysed it is seen as a political ideology and not a religion,” he alleged.Amid the din, state IT Minister Priyank Kharge intervened, saying that “If you make a hate speech, the law applies. If you don’t, it won’t.”Other BJP MLCs echoed their party line. K Prathap Simha Nayak warned that no law should become a “double-edged sword”. “Constitutional rights are sacrosanct. For short-term political gains, a law has been brought that challenges the ideals of the freedom struggle,” he claimed.BJP MLC Bharathi Shetty acknowledged the need to curb hate speech but criticised the lack of its “clear definition” in the Bill. “There is a danger that even criticism of the government could be construed as hate speech,” she said.Govt’s defenceStory continues below this adParameshwara rejected the Opposition’s charges, citing Article 19(2) which explicitly allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions for the sake of public order, decency, morality, and prevention of incitement to an offence.He also referred to a May 2025 Supreme Court order in Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India, which emphasised the need for effective legal mechanisms to curb hate speech. “Hate speech erodes dignity, fuels disharmony, and undermines tolerance in a multicultural society,” he said.Senior Congress leader and MLC B K Hariprasad strongly supported the Bill, calling secularism a basic feature of the Constitution as affirmed in the apex court’s S R Bommai judgment. “Currently, without any Emergency being imposed, the rights of several people are being curbed. They (BJP) are not saying why (climate activist) Sonam Wangchuk has been jailed. (Former IPS officer) Sanjiv Bhatt has been in prison for seven years. There are people like (student activist) Umar Khalid, who have been languishing in jail without a chargesheet… Minorities are routinely targeted for political gains. Hate speech leads to violence and deaths. The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly intervened,” he said.Congress MLC Ivan D’Souza, a lawyer from coastal Karnataka, argued that bailable offences had failed to deter moral policing, vigilantism, and hate crimes. “A stringent law creates deterrence. Repeat offenders deserve stronger punishment,” he said, drawing parallels with the BJP-led state governments’ moves to amend various cow slaughter and religious conversion laws.Story continues below this adSiddaramaiah and his deputy D K Shivakumar did not speak during the debates, but defended the Bill outside the House. “This Bill is to maintain peace and brotherhood. Hate speech has increased. Those opposing it are the ones making provocative speeches,” Siddaramaiah said following the end of the winter session on December 19.Shivakumar also asserted that “hate speech has no place in a civilised society”.A S Ponnana, legal adviser to the CM, argued that social media had amplified the impact of hate speech beyond traditional legal frameworks. “This law is against hate speech, not freedom of speech,” he stated.Voices from civil societyThe civil society groups, including Campaign Against Hate Speech, welcomed the intent of the legislation, but criticised its vague definitions as well as a lack of the consultation process.The group noted that hate speech disproportionately targets Dalits, Muslims, Christians, women, and queer communities. However, it warned that emotion-based definitions could restrict legitimate speech and dissent. “It has potential to address endemic hate, but also to restrict Article 19(1)(a),” the activist group said in a letter to Siddaramaiah.Given the nature of the debates in the state Legislature, the BJP’s strong opposition, and the concerns raised by the civil society, it is apparent that the new law, if given an assent by the Governor, will be tested in the courts for its legality and validity.The state law department was said to be in favour of sending the Bill to a legislative sub-committee if it was staunchly opposed in the House. However, the short-lived debate in the Assembly seemingly ended the prospects of such a legislative review of the proposed law.