Karnataka Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot has reserved the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025 for the consideration and assent of the President, citing significant constitutional, legal and procedural concerns.
The decision relates to the Bill which seeks to prevent hate speech and hate crimes in the state. The Governor has exercised his powers under Articles 200, 201 and 254 of the Constitution of India to forward the Bill for presidential assent.
The Bill, which was passed in the winter session of the state legislature in Belagavi in December last year, defines hate speech as any expression that causes injury or disharmony against an individual or group based on religion, race, caste, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth or disability.
The Bill also introduces the concept of collective and organisational liability, making office-bearers and leaders accountable for hate speech linked to their organisations.
Read | Explained: 10-Year Jail For Hate Speech In Karnataka Under Proposed Law
The Bill empowers the State Government to regulate internet content by blocking or removing material deemed hateful. It further expands the scope of punishments, increases fines and changes the legal classification of several offences. Many offences proposed under the Bill have been shifted from bailable to non-bailable and from non-cognizable to cognizable.
The Governor states that the new Bill significantly enhances punishments. Under provisions corresponding to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sections 196(1) and 196(2), imprisonment can extend up to seven years even for first-time offences. Financial penalties include a fine of Rs 50,000 for the first offence and up to Rs 1 lakh for repeat offences.
Another major concern raised is organisational liability. Leaders of both registered and unregistered organisations may be punished for offences committed during events, meetings or rallies conducted under their banner.
The Lok Bhavan received 40 representations opposing the Bill and urging that assent not be granted, citing fears of misuse and adverse consequences.
Concerns have also been raised about the wide and vague definition of hate speech under Section 2(1)(1), which could potentially include natural speech, intellectual criticism or academic discussion. The document flags the risk of arbitrary use of power, as authorities could prohibit events or speech based on subjective interpretations of hatred or prejudice.
Procedural shortcomings were also highlighted. These include the lack of public consultation across different sections of society, absence of interdepartmental discussions and insufficient deliberation with elected representatives in the State Assembly before the Bill was passed.
Citing these issues, the Governor State that the Bill raises serious constitutional questions, including potential violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and possible repugnancy with existing Central laws.
