Freedom of speech cannot be extended to shield hate speech: Punjab HC

Under the garb of freedom of speech, anything that has the potential to harm social harmony and the integrity of the country cannot be tolerated, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed while rejecting a plea filed by a lawyer accused of delivering a casteist hate speech and seeking the quashing of an FIR in this regard.

Dismissing the petition on December 11, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj refused to interfere with the FIR registered under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with promoting enmity between different groups, while holding that caste-based hate speech inflicts damage not only on the dignity of the individual or group targeted but also on the collective conscience and unity of the nation, The Indian Express reported.

The court underscored that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), particularly when public order, social harmony and national integrity are at stake.

The case arose from a public speech delivered by the petitioner, an advocate, during a gathering held in front of the Hisar mini-secretariat in July, which was later uploaded on a social media platform.

The meeting had been organised in connection with the rape and murder of a woman on November 16, 2024, in Haryana, in a case in which the accused were also present. During the speech, the petitioner allegedly made repeated references to caste, described certain individuals as casteist goons and levelled allegations of bribery against police officials.

The complaint was filed by the son of the deceased woman, who alleged that the speech was defamatory, promoted caste-based hatred, interfered with the administration of justice and carried the potential to disturb public peace.

Following the complaint, the advocate was booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for offences including promoting enmity, intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace, spreading false information, causing public mischief, defamation, abetment and attempt to commit offences punishable with imprisonment.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Arjun Sheoran and Tejasvi Sheokand contended that the speech was made in the course of professional duty and amounted to an exercise of constitutional free speech, while alleging that the FIR was retaliatory in nature due to the petitioner’s role as counsel for one of the accused.

However, the court found that the repeated and deliberate invocation of caste-related expressions in a charged public setting demonstrated an awareness of their divisive potential and could not be dismissed as incidental.

Justice Bhardwaj noted that the petitioner, being a trained advocate, was expected to understand the societal implications of his words and held that by addressing a public gathering, making allegations outside the courtroom and uploading the speech online, he had moved beyond the role of a legal professional into public mobilisation.