Karnataka’s Legislative Assembly recently passed the controversial Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025 (“Bill”), which is currently pending gubernatorial assent. Introduced amid concerns over religious and caste-based hostility, the Bill represents one of the first State-level attempts to explicitly define and criminalise “hate speech” and “hate crimes”. It applies to both offline and electronic expression, covers a range of protected characteristics, and imposes stringent custodial penalties for offences. The Bill also empowers law enforcement authorities (“LEAs”) to take preventive action and direct disabling of online content. This piece evaluates the Bill against India’s international human rights law (“IHRL”) obligations and argues that it fails to meet the thresholds for criminalising speech.

Applicable IHRL

Criminalisation of hate speech is governed by Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which India has ratified. The Rabat Plan of Action, developed under the auspices of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, provides guidance on the interpretation of these provisions.

Under Article 20(2) ICCPR, criminalisation is confined to intentional public advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. The Rabat Plan emphasises that criminal law must be reserved for the most severe forms of expression, and that legislatures bear responsibility for narrowly tailoring offences to clearly separate protected speech from punishable advocacy. In guiding legislative design, the Rabat Plan draws on the Camden Principles, which require narrow definitions of “hatred” and “hostility” and limit criminal liability to inciting advocacy posing an imminent risk of harm. Finally, the Rabat Plan further recommends that enforcement be guided by a six-factor assessment.

Even where Article 20(2) is engaged, restrictions on speech must independently satisfy Article 19(3) ICCPR, including the requirements of legality, legitimacy, and necessity, as clarified by the Human Rights Committee.

The Bill’s misalignment with IHRL

Although framed as a criminal response to hate speech, the Bill does not conform to the constraints IHRL imposes on criminalising expression:

Firstly, the Bill conflates ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crimes’ by defining offences primarily by reference to communication of expression. However, IHRL distinguishes these terms. Hate speech concerns inciting advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred under Article 20(2) of the ICCPR and remains subject to Article 19 safeguards. Hate crimes, by contrast, involve bias-motivated criminal acts and are regulated through equality and non-discrimination guarantees.

Secondly, the Bill extends criminal liability beyond the closed categories recognised under Article 20(2) – namely national, racial, or religious hatred – by encompassing additional characteristics like sexual orientation, gender, place of birth, residence, and language. While these characteristics may warrant protection through other legal or policy measures, their inclusion within a criminal prohibition on speech exceeds the limited scope contemplated under Article 20(2).

Thirdly, the Bill lowers the threshold of hatred under Article 20(2) by criminalising expression intended to promote “ill-will”, “disharmony”, or “enmity”, with hatred operating as only one among several alternative triggers. The Bill also omits any definition of “hatred” or “hostility,” despite the Camden Principles requiring these terms to be narrowly understood as “intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium.”

Finally, the Bill dilutes the incitement standard by treating it as interchangeable with promotion, propagation, abetment, and attempts to generate ill-will or disharmony. This departs from the Rabat Plan and Camden Principles, which confine criminalisation to inciting advocacy creating a clear or reasonably foreseeable risk of discrimination, hostility, or violence, and caution against collapsing incitement into mere promotion.

These issues demonstrate the Bill’s failure to meet Article 20(2) ICCPR threshold requirements, leaving limited scope for a meaningful proportionality analysis under Article 19(3), ICCPR. Even if Article 19(3) were engaged, the Bill would, at a minimum, fail the legality requirement since it confers unconstrained discretionary preventive powers on LEAs. It also, arguably, fails the necessity prong, which requires speech-restrictive measures to constitute the least intrusive means of achieving a legitimate aim (like maintaining public order). This is because existing federal frameworks already enable State-level LEAs to address overlapping categories of electronic expression through less restrictive means, including directions issued to intermediaries under Rule 3(1)(d), 2021 IT Rules. This framework, though not without its infirmities, largely operates within constitutionally recognised limits on speech, and incorporates at least some procedural safeguards like reasoned intimations and periodic reviews. Further, comparable prohibitions already exist at the federal level, rendering the Bill’s duplicative criminalisation difficult to justify as necessary.

Conclusion

The Bill’s implications extend beyond Karnataka, particularly due to its application to electronic expression, which cannot be meaningfully ringfenced within State boundaries. Assessing the Bill against IHRL standards is therefore germane, especially considering the Supreme Court’s recognition in Vishaka and PUCL that IHRL obligations may inform legislative interpretation where fundamental rights are implicated. Measured against IHRL standards, this analysis finds the Bill deficient, warranting reconsideration before it is operationalised.