An Indian state wants to tackle hate speech with a law - can it work?

Can a law help curb hate speech in India? That's what the southern state of Karnataka is betting on.

Last month, legislators passed a bill which aims to prevent hate speech and hate crimes that fuel communal tension or target individuals and groups.

Hate speech is not new in India, but it has intensified in recent years as social media has spread and television channels amplify comments and reactions. A report last year found hate speech against minorities - mainly Muslims - rose 74% in 2024, peaking during the national elections.

That's why the Karnataka government - led by the Congress party - says the move is necessary, arguing that hate speech can lead to real-life violence. But critics warn this could come at the cost of civil liberties and free speech.

The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, which still needs the state governor's sign to become law, sets out how hate speech cases should be investigated and prosecuted.

It defines hate speech as any "expression which is made, published, or circulated… in public view" verbally, in print, television or social media. But it also defines a hate crime as the "communication of hate speech", without specifying whether it needs to lead to violence or not.

The bill gives the state government the power to order social media and digital platforms to take down content it deems hate speech, something only the federal government can do currently.

India doesn't have a federal law against hate speech but a number of provisions across laws prohibit certain forms of speech, writing and actions as exceptions to free speech.

This includes criminalisation of acts that could promote "enmity between different groups on grounds of religion" and "deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs".

The BJP, which governs nationally but is in the opposition in Karnataka, has said that bringing in a separate law is unnecessary.

But Karnataka home minister G Parameshwara told the assembly the bill would close loopholes in existing law, making hate speech and hate crimes non-bailable and giving the state wider powers to act.

It also raises punishments. If passed into law, those convicted of hate crimes would face non-bailable jail terms of one to seven years and fines of 50,000 rupees ($550; £410), with tougher penalties for repeat offenders.

The chief minister of neighbouring Telangana state, also governed by the Congress, has said that they will introduce a similar bill as well.

The BJP, often accused of coming down sharply on dissent nationally and in states it governs, has been protesting against the bill, saying it could curb free speech.

"Through this law, the state government is taking away people's right to free speech guaranteed by the constitution, and putting opposition leaders and the media behind bars," opposition leader R Ashoka told the assembly.

Legal experts and free speech activists echo the concerns.

Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Hegde warns that the law could be misused by political parties across the spectrum.

"One party's hate speech is another man's political propaganda and vice versa. Just because you dislike some speech, it does not become hate speech," he says.

Alok Prasanna Kumar, advocate and co-founder of Vidhi Centre for Legal policy, says that while the intent behind the law might be good, there is "enormous scope for misuse".

The debate has also raised a more fundamental issue around how hate speech and crime are defined by law.

"It is an attempt by a state to define hate speech as a term in the law, which expands beyond existing provisions on promoting enmity and outraging religious feelings, to include speech targeting caste, religion and other identities," said Siddharth Narrain, assistant professor at National Law School of India University.

However, he says the bill blurs the line between hate speech and hate crime. Hate speech, he argues, should be prosecuted because it can lead to violence, but the current wording treats communication itself as a hate crime even when no violence follows.

Experts also cite a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that laws criminalising speech must be precise, not vague or overly broad, to avoid a "chilling effect" in which people self-censor for fear of prosecution.

BJP leaders and some activists have urged the governor not to pass the bill but to instead send it to the Indian president for consideration.

Advocate and social activist Girish Bhardwaj, who has written to the governor, says the bill regulates citizens rather than hate speech.

He argues it gives excessive discretion to "executive agencies" - senior police and administrative officers - to decide what speech falls under the law, raising the risk of conflicts of interest, especially when the government is being criticised.

However, a senior Karnataka government official told the BBC, on condition of anonymity, that the bill would empower police by removing the need for government permission to file chargesheets, ruling out abuse of power.

"The police will have to approach the court directly and face consequences for inaction or mistakes," the official said.

This also means the accused can be tried regardless of political affiliation, the official added.

"If a party worker indulges in hate speech or a hate crime, the ruling party may not sanction prosecution. Under this law, the government cannot intervene," the official said.

Critics, however, argue that because the first point of action is the police, they may exercise a wider discretion in deciding what qualifies as hate speech.

"The first step is the police; the judiciary comes much later," Kumar says, arguing that the law's breadth and harsh penalties could push police to act on political signals rather than independent judgement.

"This is why I am not so sure this bill will achieve any of its intended effects at the end of the day," he adds.