PANAJI
A recent study by Goa University’s legal academic has warned that India’s existing legal framework is ill-equipped to tackle the growing challenge of hate speech in the digital era, despite strong constitutional guarantees of free expression.
The research, conducted by Dr Vijay Madhu Gawas, an Assistant Professor at the Manohar Parrikar School of Law Governance and Public Policy under University of Goa, examines the complex balance between freedom of speech and regulation of hate speech in a diverse democracy. The study was published in Legal Lock Journals LLP.
One of the strongest findings of the study is that “existing legal and constitutional frameworks are insufficient to address the challenges posed by digital amplification of hate speech,” citing legislative ambiguities and inconsistent enforcement as key concerns. The paper further observes that “the enforcement of hate speech laws often remains inconsistent,” with gaps between judicial intent and implementation.
Highlighting the core issue, the study notes that “the tension between the right to freedom of speech and the need to regulate hate speech constitutes a persistent challenge in democratic societies,” adding that in India this is further complicated by its “profound cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity.”
At a broader level, the paper stresses that “freedom of speech and the regulation of hate speech represent two sides of the same constitutional coin,” warning that unchecked expression can “undermine civic coexistence and communal harmony.”
While Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech, the paper points out that Article 19(2) allows “reasonable restrictions” in the interest of public order and morality. However, it cautions that “the rise of digital communication platforms has intensified the spread of hate speech, creating socio-legal dilemmas about the limits of expression in a pluralistic society.”
The study underscores the judiciary’s pivotal role in shaping free speech jurisprudence, noting that courts have repeatedly held that the right to speech “is not absolute and must be exercised with responsibility.” It cites landmark rulings such as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague, while still recognising the State’s authority to curb speech that incites violence. It also refers to Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, which acknowledged the growing menace of hate speech and called for legislative action.
Calling for reforms, the study recommends clearer laws, stronger institutional mechanisms, and responsible digital governance. It also emphasises the need for collaboration between the legislature, judiciary, and civil society, along with improved digital literacy to curb the spread of hate-driven narratives.
“Balancing free speech and societal harmony requires a nuanced approach integrating judicial safeguards, legislative clarity, and responsible digital governance,” the study concludes, underlining the need to align individual liberty with constitutional morality in an increasingly digital India.
