AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 267

(ii) after the entries relating to section 505, the following entries shall be inserted, namely:-

1 2 3 4 5 6
505A Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases Imprisonment for one year and/ or with fine up to Rs 5000, or both Non-cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate

1 J.S. Mill, On Liberty and Utilitarianism 4 (Bantam Classic, New York, 2008) .

2 U.N.G.A. Res. 217 A (III), 1948.

3 Steffen Schmidt and II Mack C. Shelley, Barbara Bardes et. al., American Government and Politics Today (Cengage Learning, USA, 2014).

4 Peter Longerich, Goebbels: A Biography 212-213 (Random House, New York, 2015).

5 Richard J. Evans , The Third Reich in Power 121 (Penguin, New York, 2005).

6 Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, Doctor Goebbels: His Life and Death 121 (Skyhorse, New York, 1960).

7 Those who spoke during the discussion in the Committee on hate speech were K.M. Panikkar, Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer, Syama Prasad Mookherjee, K.M. Munshi, the chairperson J.B. Kriplani, C. Rajagopalachari and H.C. Mookherjee and Thakur Das Bhargava.

8 Constituent Assembly Debates (Nov. 4, 1948) 1459.

9 Owen M. Fiss, "Why the State?" 100 Harv. L. Rev. 785 (1986-1987).

10 S. Sivakumar, Press Law and Journalists 11 (Universal Law Publishing Co., Gurgaon, 2015)

11 AIR 2014 SC 1591.

12 Ibid.

13 AIR 2014 SC 2537.

14 AIR 1950 SC 129.

15 The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 .

16 AIR 1966 SC 740.

17 O. K. Ghosh v. E. X. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812; and Supdt. Central Prison v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633.

18 AIR 1957 SC 620.

19 It reads:

"Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.]"

20 Supra note 18.

21 AIR 1988 SC 775.

22 See Ram Manohar Lohiya supra note 17; and Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 1228.

23 Ram Manohar Lohiya supra note 17.

24 AIR 2015 SC 1523.

25 (2011) 3 SCC 377.

26 (2010) 7 SCC 398.

27 (2011) 6 SCC 405.

28 AIR 1997 SC 3483.

29 AIR 1980 SC 763.

30 See Handyside v. United Kingdom, Application no. 5493/72(1976).

31 J.S. Mill, supra note 1.

32 New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

33 Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech 87-88 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2012).

34William A. Schabas, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : The Travaux Préparatoires (Volume I) lxxiii (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2013).

35 Roger Kiska, "Hate Speech: A Comparison between the European Court of Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence" 25 Regent University Law Review 119 (2012).

36 99 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966).

37 660 UNTS 195 (1966).

38 Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, 17th Session, A/HRC/17/27 (May 16, 2011), available at :

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf (last visited on Jan. 23, 2017).

39 Id. at para 25.

40 Art. 10(1) reads:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

41 European Convention on Human Rights, 213 UNTS 221(1950).

42 Art. 10(2) reads :

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

43 Art. 17 reads: "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention."

44 Ibid.

45 Recommendation No. R (97) 20, available at:

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/other_committees/dh-lgbt_docs/CM_Rec(97)20_en.pdf, (last visited on Dec. 30, 2016); See also Summary report of the Secretary General. prepared by the Directorate of Human Rights on the 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Prague, Dec. 7-8, 1994) , available at :

https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=411463&SecMode=1&DocId=517420&Usage=2 (last visited on Dec. 25, 2016)., Appendix III para 7.

46 Anne Weber, Manual on Hate Speech, available at:

https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/Publications/Hate_Speech_EN.pdf (last visited on Dec. 28, 2016).

47 Ibid.

48 Delfi AS v. Estonia, Application no. 64569/09 (2015).

49 Supra note 30 at para 49.

50 Supra note 43.

51 Supra note 30.

52 ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 7 on National Legislation to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination (Dec. 13, 2002), available at:

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/gpr/en/recommendation_n7/ecri03-8%20recommendation%20nr%207.pdf (last visited on Dec. 20, 2016).

53 Id. at para 64.

54 See M. Otheimer, "Protecting Freedom of Expression: The Challenge of Hate Speech in the European Court of Human Rights Case Law" 17 Cardozo J. Int'l& Comp. L. 430 (2009).

55 Jersild v. Denmark, Application No. 15890/89 (1994) para 42.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Application no. 23131/03 (2004).

59 Ibid

60 Application no. 1813/07 (2012).

61Id. at para 7.

62 Application no. 25239/13 (2015).

63 Application No. 32307/96(2000).

64Supra note 48.

65 Id. at para 110.

66 Id. at para 159.

67 See supra note 43.

68 Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).

69 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

70 See New York Times supra note 32; and Whitney v. California 274 U.S. 357 (1927).

71 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

72 Ibid.

73 343 U.S. 250 (1952).

74 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

75 Id. at 20.

76 Id. at 25.

77 Supra note 32.

78 505 U.S. 377 (1992).

79 Supra note 71.

80 508 U.S. 47 (1993).

81 Under this statute a wrongful conduct pursuant to a discriminatory viewpoint attracted heavier punishment than a conduct not motivated by such belief.

82 Supra note 78.

83 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

84 395 U.S. 44 (1969). The Appellant was convicted under an Illinois statute making it a crime to "Advertise or publish, present or exhibit in any public place any lithograph, moving picture, play, drama or sketch, which portrays depravity, criminality, unchastity, lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race, color, creed or religion which said publication or exhibition exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy or which is productive of breach of peace or riots."

85 Section 2.

86 (1990)3 SCR 697.

87 (1990)3 SCR 870.

88 (1990) 3 SCR 892.

89 Supra note 86.

90 Ibid.

91 [1986] 1 SCR 103.

92 Ibid.

93 [2013] 1 SCR 467.

94 [1992] 2 SCR 731.

95 [1996] 1 SCR 825.

96 26 [2015] DEREBUS 45.

97 See supra note 24.

98 Saskatchewan supra note 93.

99 Chaplinsky supra note 71.

100 Supra note 24.

101 Supra note 84.

102 Supra note 68.

103 J. Weinstein, Hate Speech, Pornography and Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine 93 (Westview Press, Colorado, 1999).

104 Incal v. Turkey, Application no. 41/1997/825/1031 (1998).

105 Supra note 11.

106 (1986) 8 EHRR 407.

107 Supra note 21.

108 See e.g. Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, AIR 1996 SC 1846.

109 UNGA, Sixty sixth session "Report by Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression"(Sept. 7, 2012) UN Doc A/67/357, paras 32, 33.

110See for e.g. Chaplinsky supra note 71 (laying down the fighting words doctrine).

112 Lord Reid, "The Judge as Lawmaker" 12 Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law (1972) cited in Abhiram Singh v. C.D Commachen (Dead) by Lrs.&Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 629.

113 Supra note 24.

114 Stephanie Nolen, "India's ethnic clashes intensify within social-media maelstrom" Aug. 23 2012, available at:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/indias-ethnic-clashes-intensify-within-social-media-maelstrom/article4496392/ (last visited on Feb. 5, 2017).

115 Asian Centre For Human Rights, "Assam Riots: Preventable but not Prevented" Sept. 2012, available

116 See supra note 9.

117 Supra note 13.

118 Ibid

119 Id. at paras 27-9.

120 Section 3(1)(x).

121 (2008) 8 SCC 435.

122 Restrictions based on public morality have been struck down on the basis that these restrictions were discriminatory. See Irina Fedotovav. Russian Federation, UN Doc. No. CCPR/C/106/D/1932/2010.(Held that a Ryazan Regional Law in Russia, prohibiting dissemination of information related to homosexuality to minors, violated the non-discrimination provisions of the ICCPR).

123 For a recent account of the legislative debates leading to the enactment of section 295A; See Neeti Nair, Beyond the 'Communal' 1920s: The Problem of Intention, Communal Pragmatism, and the Making of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 50 Indian Economic Social History Review 317 (2013) available at;

http://ier.sagepub.com/content/50/3/317, DOI: 10.1177/0019464613494622 (last visited on Feb. 14, 2017).

124 For difference between 'tendency and intention' see Law Commission of India, "42nd Report on Indian Penal Code".

125 AIR 1996 SC 1113.

126 AIR 1996 SC 817.

127 1996 SCC (1) 169.

128 Abhiram supra note 104.

129 See also, Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya v. Lachhi Ram, AIR 1954 SC 686.

130 See supra note 14.

131 AIR 1977 SC 202.

132 See Siddharth Narrain, "Hate Speech, Hurt Sentiment, and the (Im)Possibility of Free Speech" 51(17) Economic and Political Weekly 122 (Apr. 23, 2016).

133 See section on Chapter IV of this report for a detailed account on international laws.

134 Supra note 93.

135 Ibid.

136 W.R. Donogh, A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British India 164 (Thacker, Spink and Co., Calcutta, 1911).

137 Jakarta Recommendations on Freedom of Expression in the Context of Religion (June 17, 2015) available at:

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jakarta-Recommendations-FINAL.pdf (last visited on Jan. 16, 2017).

138 The term advocacy of hatred has been used in Article 20 of the ICCPR , Constitution of South Africa, Art. 16(2)(c) and also Human Rights Council, "Report of the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues", 28th session, Agenda item 3, A/HRC/28/64 (Jan. 5, 2015) available at:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session28/Documents/A_HRC_28_64_ENG.doc. (last visited on Jan. 16, 2017).

139 AIR 1962 SC 955.

140 AIR 1942 FC 22.

141 AIR 1947 PC 84.

142 Supra note 140.

143 Supra note 139.



Hate Speech Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys