Lack Of Mandatory Jail Sentence For Hate Speech Crimes Serious Matter : Kerala High Court Flags Issue To Parliament & Law Commission

While denying anticipatory bail to BJP leader PC George in a case for making remarks against the Muslim community, the Kerala High Court expressed concerns about the rising frequency of statements based on caste and religion."Nowadays, there is a tendency to make statements based on religion, caste etc. These are against the basic structure of our Constitution. These tendencies should be nipped in the bud," Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed in the bail order.The Court also flagged an inadequacy in the present penal provisions dealing with hate speeches, as the offender can get by paying a fine. Section 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion etc), and 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are the penal provisions dealing with hate speech crimes. As per both these provisions, jail sentence is optional, as the Court has the discretion to pass a sentence of fine instead. Both provisions prescribe a punishment of imprisonment up to 3 years, or with fine or both. The Court further pointed out that even second-time offenders are not subjected to higher punishment and emphasized that this issue requires consideration by the Parliament and the Law Commission."For the offences under Sections 196(1) (a) and 299 of the BNS, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is three years or fine or with both. Even for a second offender, there is no higher punishment...This is a serious matter to be looked into by the Law Commission and the Parliament. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Chairman of the Law Commission of India," the Court observed.The petitioner is repeatedly making communal statementsWhile dismissing the petition of PC George, who was booked for making statements that all Muslims are terrorists and communalists during a live channel discussion on Janam TV, the Court noted that he was in the habit of making repeated communal statements.The Court noted that in 2022, he was booked for making statements targeting the Muslim community. While granting him bail then, the High Court had imposed a condition that he should refrain from making such comments. However, the petitioner violated the condition. Unfit to be a politician if easily provokedThe petitioner's lawyer had submitted that the comments were a "slip of tongue" which were uttered when a co-panelist provoked him. Addressing this contention, the Court stated that a politician like the petitioner, if he gets provoked so easily, does not deserve to continue as a political leader."I am forced to say that, a politician like the petitioner, who has about 30 years of experience as an MLA can be provoked easily like this, he does not deserve to continue as a political leader. " The Court also rejected the contention of the petitioner that he has apologised through his Facebook page.The Court said, “…the petitioner is a Senior politician and was an MLA for 30 years representing a Constituency. The people will closely watch his speech, statements and even behaviour. The politicians should be a role model to the society. After making abusive statements which may result in communal disharmony, the apology given by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner ought to have thought that he was participating in a live coverage discussion on a channel. Lakhs and Lakhs of people are watching the television.”The Court further stated bail cannot be granted to an accused merely because custodial interrogation was not necessary. It stated that the Court must consider the antecedents of the accused and the seriousness of the allegations for bail. Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vijayabhanu, Advocates Sruthy N. Bhat, P.M.Rafiq, Ajeesh K.Sasi, M.Revikrishnan, Rahul Sunil, Sruthy K.K, Sohail Ahammed Harris P.P., Nanditha S., Aaron Zacharias Benny, K.Aravind MenonCounsel for Respondents: Advocate S Rajeev, Special Government Pleader P Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader Sajju S, Advocates V.Vinay, M.S.Aneer, Sarath K.P., K.S.Kiran Krishnan, Anilkumar C.R., Dipa V.Case Title: P C George v State of Kerala Case No: Bail Appl. No. 1874 OF 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 125Click Here To Read/ Download Order

Lack Of Mandatory Jail Sentence For Hate Speech Crimes Serious Matter : Kerala High Court Flags Issue To Parliament & Law Commission

Tellmy Jolly

Tags