Karnataka’s new Hate Speech and Hate Crimes Bill comes clothed in the language of curbing “hate speech" and preserving “harmony". It speaks of dignity, equality, and safety. But what the Siddaramaiah government has now approved in the cabinet is not a defence of harmony; it is a draconian measure towards a police state which curbs speech, thought, association, and even emotion. Congress had earlier tried this with Section 66A of the IT act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court. The new Bill resurrects it.

To understand the magnitude of this move, begin with the definition the bill rests on. “Harm," we are told, includes any emotional, psychological, physical, social or economic harm. Any emotional harm. Any psychological harm. Any social harm. Under such a definition, a political argument becomes a prosecutable injury. A meme becomes a legal offence, a joke a potential violation. A sarcastic remark becomes a crime of the mind. If one wants to escape “emotional harm" one shouldn’t be on social media. Or even in a family. Anything can be said to cause “emotional harm"—from a teacher’s admonition to a mother’s scolding. The bill’s own existence causes emotional harm to every citizen who now has to second-guess each post, each forward, each retweet, wondering if a magistrate—or more likely a police constable—will deem it injurious.

If this is the standard, the government should arrest itself first. Of course, the government realises that so it first exempts itself: “No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any officer or authority of the government."

From this bizarre foundation the bill criminalizes a vast, undefined territory of expression. Anyone who “publishes, propagates or advocates" anything that could be construed as intending to “harm or incite harm or promote or propagate hatred" risks three years in jail. Three years, non-bailable, for a post on social media. And “hatred" here is not a term of art with precise meaning; it is whatever an offended party, vindictive politician or an overzealous policeman wants it to be. The police do not need to show violence, or incitement to violence, or even a clear and present danger. Hurt feelings are enough.

This alone violates the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), which struck down the infamous UPA-era Section 66A of the IT Act. In that landmark judgement, the Court held that vague, subjective categories like “offensive," “annoying," or “inconvenient" speech were unconstitutional. Restrictions on speech must be tightly drawn and linked directly to incitement to violence—not to emotional discomfort. Karnataka’s bill not only revives the very vagueness the Court condemned, it expands it. If 66A punished annoyance, Karnataka punishes emotion itself.

Worse than what you say, however, is what you forward. Section 7 of the bill introduces a new frontier in thought-policing: the criminalisation........

© News18