ABSTRACT

The right to free speech, with a few restrictions, is fundamental in the Constitution of India. However, the over (mis)use of this right has resulted in grave consequences, most notably resulting in violence nationwide. In recent years, there has been a rise in cases of hate or abominate Speech, and violence has resulted. According to reports from the media, in 2020, an increase of 500% in cases involving abominate speech laws was throughout seveIn contrast, 2013 (323 cases) was the lowest number of cases filed in seven years. The year 2020, with 1,804 cases, was the most cases. This study aims to analyze abominable Speech using the lens of a judicial view. The research will reveal the reasons behind the horrible speech problem in India. The study will also examine the judicial and legislative approach to abominate Speech about the incidences of abhorrent expression in India. The study will also look at solutions to the problem of abominate words in India.

INTRODUCTION

Freedom of Speech, with some restrictions, is recognized as a fundamental human right under the Constitution of India. However, excessive (mis)use of this right has had grave consequences, most notably resulting in violence throughout the nation. In recent years, there has been an increase in instances of abominate Speech. As a result, violence has been a result. According to reports, from the media, in 2020, a 500% increase in cases filed under the law was against abominable in just seven years. Although 2014 (323 points) was the year with the lowest number of cases filed in seven years in 2000, 2020, with 1,804 points, was the most cases. This study attempts to analyze abominate Speech using the lens of judicial reattempts. The investigation will uncover the root causes of abhorrent Speech in India. It will also investigate the judicial and legislative approach to abominate addresses the incidences of offensive language in India. The study is about solutions to the problem of mean expression in India.

Legislative Outline

The different forms of abominable Speech are protected under law, though not being mentioned explicitly in any statute. In India’sthe  Penal Code’s Se of 153A, 153B 295A 298, 505(1), & 505(2), Any spoken or written words that evoke hatred, hostility or inflict insults based on race or caste, ethnicity, or culture, language, location, or any other factor is unlawful and subject to a penalty. Sec 153A is a punishment for the promotion of hostility among different groups. Sec 153B punishes allegations and assertions that harm the national integration. Sec 505 punishes rumors and information that ote hatred within the community. Sec 295A prohibits denigrating someone’s religion using words with malice or malicious intent.

Judicial Perspective

N.V. Sharma Vs. Union of India In N.V. Sharma Vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court(SC) has rebuked an ex-spokesperson of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, Nupur Sharma, for her controversial remarks about the Prophet Muhammad in a debate on television in May 2022. The comments angered Indian Muslims and outraged Islamic nations. The Court compelled the spokesperson suspended to apologize to the nation at large if she put the country’s safety at risk, adamant it was clear that “her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire.” It attributed her to “igniting emotions across the country,” noting that her rant was responsible for the unfortunate incident in Udaipur in which one tailor was killed.

Shaheen Abdulla Vs. Union of India and Others

Recentlsailorhis case, the SC in this matter issued an interim order and stated that “immediately at the time any act or Speech takes place that could lead to offenses like Sections 153A and 153B, 295A and 153B 505 in the IPC and so on. In addition, suo motu actions can be initiated to file instances even if there is no formal complaint and take action against offenders according to the legal requirements. Any hesitation to comply in accordance with this directive is viewed as disobedience to this Court and appropriate actions is taken against the offending officers. We also make it explicit that the actions will be taken regardless of the religion the speaker and the one who committed the act is a member of and to ensure that the secular aspect of Bharat as envisioned by the Preamble is protected and secured.” These interim instructions were intended primarily for the police officers of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh & Uttarakhand. It issued notices to all three States and requested them to report on their actions regarding adolescent speech cases.

Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs. Union of India and others

In this case, the SC of this matter examined the issue and said that the abominate Speech is a form of discrimination against individuals of their ethnicity. abhorrent Speech is the base for attacks against vulnerable, including Abhorrentnes. The SC also stated that it was a matter that deserved greater consideration by the Law Commission of India.

The state of Karnatakmore significant than even Bhai

In this case, the SC decided that if speech “are likely to trigger communal antagonism and hatred,” authorities must issue prohibitionary orders.

Tehseen S.Poonawalla Vs. the Union of Indians and other

In this instance, the SC issued instructions to states concerning preventive, punitive, and corrective actions to be implemented in the case of mob killings.

Kodungallur Film Society and another Vs. Union of India and other

In this case, the Court found the following “abominate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest it results in a reign of terror.” The PIL stressed the law and order issues that result from films like Padmavat because it is insensitive to religious or cultural sentiments.