Case Title: Amish Devgan V. Union of India & Ors.
The idea of "hate speech" was extensively discussed by the Apex Court in the present case.
In their ruling, Justices A. M. Khanwilkar and Sanjay Khanna addressed the differences between "hate speech" and "free speech," the necessity to punish it, and the criteria for identifying it. According to the ruling, "Hate speech cannot logically contribute in any acceptable way to democracy and, in fact, rejects the right to equality."
The verdict states that a line must be drawn between free expression and hate speech. The court observed -
“In this context, it is necessary to draw a distinction between free speech which includes the right to comment, favour or criticise government policies; and 'hate speech' creating or spreading hatred against a targeted community or group. The former is primarily concerned with political, social and economic issues and policy matters, the latter would not primarily focus on the subject matter but on the substance of the message which is to cause humiliation and alienation of the targeted group.”
The Court noted that regardless of caste, creed, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, language preference, etc., the goal of criminalising hate speech is to safeguard an individual's dignity and to maintain political and social equality amongst various identities and groups.
The Court defined "dignity" in this context as referring to a person's fundamental entitlement to good standing, his status as socially equal and respecting the individual's human rights and constitutional safeguards.
The Court made it clear that dignity "does not-not allude to any particular level of respect or regard as a person, as in the case of defamation which is individualistic" in this context of hate speech.
"Loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members contributes to disharmony amongst groups, erodes tolerance and open-mindedness which are a must for a multi-cultural society committed to equality. It affects an individual as a member of a group", the Court observed.
The impact of the remarks must be evaluated in light of the standards of sensible, strong-minded, resolute, and courageous individuals rather than by those who are frail, have wavering minds, or see danger in every opposing viewpoint.
According to the Court, the standard is "the man on top of a Clapham omnibus," as stated under the English law.
In addition to the speech's substance, the context plays a crucial role in establishing whether it qualifies as "hate speech."
According to the ruling, content refers more to the speech, language, and message that should denigrate, humiliate, and inspire psychological hate or physical violence against the designated group. The context of hate speech contains a vital variable, which is "who" and "what", as well as "where" and the "occasion, time, and circumstances" in which the case emerges.
"A publication which contains unnecessary asides which appear to have no real purpose other than to disparage will tend to evidence that the publications were written with a mala fide intention", the Court observed.
The Court also noted that hate speech has no other justifiable or acceptable goal other than to incite hatred towards a certain population.
The Court made these observations relying upon Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India and Others, Balwant Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, and declined to drop the FIR filed against News 18 anchor Amish Devgan for his comments made during a discussion on the Places of Worship Act of 1991 which was allegedly demeaning to Sufi Saint Moinuddin Chishti.