Civil society groups flag concerns over Karnataka hate speech Bill, seek wider consultation

A civil society organisation has urged the Karnataka government to subject the proposed Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, to wider public consultation before it is tabled in the Legislative Council. It has already been tabled in the Assembly.

While welcoming the intent behind the legislation, Campaign Against Hate Speech, the organisation, said the Bill in its present form raises several concerns that warrant careful review.

In a representation to the government, the group said the Bill marks an important acknowledgement of the harm hate speech and hate crimes inflict on constitutional values of fraternity and dignity. Stating that such acts disproportionately target Dalits, Muslims, Christians, women and queer communities, they cautioned that the current version risks being ineffective and may also leave scope for misuse.

Key concerns

A key concern is the Bill’s definition of “hate crime”, which is limited to communication of hate speech. “This creates a false equivalence between speech and physical acts of violence, and fails to recognise offences such as mob lynching, punitive demolitions and social or economic boycotts. The Bill also provides no standalone punishment for hate speech, and relies on an emotion-based definition — an approach that has already led to weak enforcement under existing criminal laws,” the memorandum stated.

The range of punishment for hate crimes — one to seven years — was questioned for its lack of clarity, especially since the offence is non-bailable and cognisable. Sections granting broad “preventive” powers to the Executive Magistrate and police were flagged as potentially enabling arbitrary action, as the law does not define the scope of such powers or the due process requirements.

Fear of censorship

Another point of concern, the group said, is the provision allowing a designated officer to block or remove online content construed as hate crime material even before trial, which the civil society groups warn could amount to executive censorship.

Emphasising that the Bill has far-reaching implications for free speech under Article 19(1)(a), the Campaign cited the Supreme Court’s emphasis on meaningful public consultation and referred to the Centre’s 2014 Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, which requires draft laws to be placed in the public domain for at least 30 days.

The organisation urged the State to hold extensive stakeholder meetings, including with civil society, police and legal authorities, and, if needed, refer the Bill to an expert or House committee.