For this article:

28 Dec 2025·Source: The Hindu
3 min
Polity & GovernanceSocial IssuesPolity & GovernanceNEWS

Shiv Sena Leader Accused of Hate Speech Against Bangladeshis, FIR Filed

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut faces FIR for alleged hate speech against Bangladeshis.

Shiv Sena Leader Accused of Hate Speech Against Bangladeshis, FIR Filed

Photo by Andre Hunter

Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) leader Sanjay Raut has been accused of hate speech against Bangladeshis, leading to the registration of an FIR. The complaint alleges that Raut's remarks during a rally were inflammatory and aimed at creating enmity between groups.

This incident brings to the forefront critical issues surrounding freedom of speech, hate speech laws in India, and their impact on communal harmony and national security. The legal framework, including sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Representation of the People Act, is often invoked in such cases, highlighting the fine line between free expression and incitement.

Key Facts

1.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut accused of hate speech against Bangladeshis.

2.

FIR registered under IPC sections 153A, 505(2), and 504.

3.

Remarks made during a rally in Nashik.

UPSC Exam Angles

1.

Constitutional provisions (Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2)) and their judicial interpretation.

2.

Specific legal frameworks to combat hate speech (IPC sections like 153A, 295A, 505, etc.).

3.

Role of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) in regulating political speech and electoral conduct.

4.

Impact of hate speech on communal harmony, national security, and democratic processes.

5.

Challenges in defining and prosecuting hate speech, especially in the digital age.

Visual Insights

Location of Alleged Hate Speech Incident

This map highlights Mumbai, Maharashtra, the likely location where Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut's rally and alleged hate speech incident occurred, leading to an FIR.

Loading interactive map...

📍Mumbai, Maharashtra
More Information

Background

India's constitutional framework guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), a cornerstone of its democratic ethos. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, 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.

Hate speech, though not explicitly defined in Indian law, falls under these restrictions, particularly concerning public order and incitement. Various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other statutes aim to curb speech that promotes enmity or disrupts communal harmony.

Latest Developments

The registration of an FIR against a prominent political leader for alleged hate speech against a specific community (Bangladeshis) brings to the forefront the practical application and challenges of these legal provisions. It highlights the tension between free expression and the need to prevent incitement, especially when political figures are involved, given their potential to influence public opinion and impact communal relations. This incident underscores the role of law enforcement and the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing hate speech laws.

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. Consider the following statements regarding 'hate speech' and its regulation in India: 1. The Indian Constitution explicitly defines 'hate speech' and prohibits it under Article 19(2). 2. Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code penalizes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. 3. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides for disqualification of a candidate for indulging in corrupt practices, which may include appeals on grounds of religion or race. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • A.1 and 2 only
  • B.2 and 3 only
  • C.1 and 3 only
  • D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is incorrect. The Indian Constitution does not explicitly define 'hate speech'. Instead, it allows for 'reasonable restrictions' on freedom of speech under Article 19(2) for various grounds, under which 'hate speech' is implicitly covered through statutory laws. Statement 2 is correct. Section 153A of the IPC specifically deals with promoting enmity between different groups. Statement 3 is correct. Sections 8 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, deal with disqualification and corrupt practices, respectively, which include making appeals on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language.

2. In the context of legal provisions against hate speech in India, which of the following statements is NOT correct?

  • A.Section 295A of the IPC deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
  • B.Section 505 of the IPC penalizes statements conducing to public mischief, including those creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.
  • C.The Supreme Court of India has provided a clear, exhaustive definition of 'hate speech' that is uniformly applied across all statutes.
  • D.The Law Commission of India has, in its reports, recommended specific amendments to existing laws to more effectively tackle hate speech.
Show Answer

Answer: C

Statement A is correct. Section 295A of the IPC is a key provision against religious hate speech. Statement B is correct. Section 505 of the IPC addresses statements causing public mischief, including those promoting enmity. Statement D is correct. The Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report (2017), recommended the insertion of new sections 153C and 505A into the IPC to specifically define and penalize hate speech. Statement C is NOT correct. While the Supreme Court has dealt with numerous cases involving hate speech, it has not yet provided a single, exhaustive, and universally applicable definition of 'hate speech' for all statutory purposes. The interpretation often depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, leading to ongoing debates.

3. Consider the following statements regarding the 'reasonable restrictions' on freedom of speech and expression in India: 1. The grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions are exhaustively listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 2. The 'test of proportionality' is often applied by courts to determine the validity of such restrictions. 3. Restrictions can be imposed by executive order without legislative backing if they are in the interest of national security. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • A.1 only
  • B.2 only
  • C.1 and 2 only
  • D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer

Answer: C

Statement 1 is correct. Article 19(2) explicitly lists the grounds for reasonable restrictions: sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence. This list is exhaustive. Statement 2 is correct. The 'test of proportionality' (as laid down in cases like K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India) is a crucial judicial tool to assess whether a restriction on a fundamental right is legitimate, necessary, and proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved. Statement 3 is incorrect. Any restriction on fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, must have the backing of a law enacted by the legislature. Executive orders alone, without legislative authority, cannot impose such restrictions, even in the interest of national security (unless specifically authorized by law).

GKSolverToday's News