Quick Overview
Karnataka has introduced India’s first dedicated law to curb hate speech and hate crimes, marking a major step toward filling legislative gaps in digital and offline social harmony regulation. Alongside this, a major political development emerged with MPs planning an impeachment motion against a High Court judge—bringing judicial accountability mechanisms into focus. Together, these issues underline the intersection of governance, constitutional rights, judicial processes, and the growing need to address polarization, misuse of expression, and institutional transparency in India.
1. Karnataka’s Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025: A First-of-its-Kind Move
Karnataka has become the first Indian state to bring a comprehensive law defining and penalizing hate speech. While hate speech is widely debated, Indian criminal law has never explicitly defined it—leading to scattered enforcement and low conviction rates.
Key Features of the Bill
Clear Definition: Hate speech includes any expression causing disharmony or injury to individuals or groups based on religion, caste, race, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, or disability.
Collective Liability: Organisations and persons holding positions of responsibility can be held accountable if hate speech is linked to their platforms.
Digital Regulation: The government is empowered to block or remove hateful online content to curb its viral nature.
Constitutional Basis
Article 19(1)(a) provides freedom of speech.
Article 19(2) allows restrictions for public order, morality, defamation, national security, and preventing incitement of offences.
Existing Legal Provisions
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): Sections 196 and 299 criminalise enmity and outraging religious feelings.
RPA, 1951: Bars candidates convicted of promoting enmity.
SC/ST Act and PCR Act: Penalise humiliation and untouchability.
IT Act 2000: Section 66A struck down in Shreya Singhal for vagueness.
Key Judgments
Shaheen Abdulla (2022): SC ordered suo motu police action against hate speech.
Tehseen Poonawalla (2018): Guidelines to curb lynching and violent vigilantism.
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan (2014): Directed Law Commission to define hate speech.
Shreya Singhal (2015): Struck down Section 66A.
Steps Taken So Far
267th Law Commission Report proposed Sections 153C & 505A to criminalise incitement.
Viswanathan and Bezbaruah Committees recommended stronger provisions against hate-motivated acts.
Way Forward
Clear legal definitions targeting only speech that provokes violence.
Media literacy to counter misinformation and online radicalisation.
Independent oversight bodies for monitoring hate trends.
International cooperation for cross-border digital hate speech.
Conclusion
The Karnataka Bill is a significant reform attempt. Its impact will depend on precision, balanced enforcement, and safeguarding free expression while reducing social polarization.
2. Impeachment and In-House Inquiry for Judges in India
The INDIA bloc’s plan to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice G.R. Swaminathan has revived debates on judicial accountability. His controversial order related to religious practices triggered calls for a deeper inquiry.
Constitutional Framework
Articles 124(4) & 218: Provide grounds—proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Details the inquiry and removal process.
Impeachment Process
Motion Initiation:
100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign.
Speaker/Chairman must admit it.
Inquiry Committee:
Consists of a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a jurist.
Special Majority Vote:
Absolute majority + two-thirds present and voting in both Houses.
Presidential Order finalises removal.
Key Challenges
No judge has ever been successfully impeached—due to high thresholds and political complexities.
Judges often resign mid-process.
1999 In-House Procedure
Designed to deal with lesser misconduct:
Early complaint screening.
Three-member committees for SC/HC judges.
Outcomes: advice to resign, caution, or recommend impeachment.
Significance
Creates a balance between judicial independence and ethical accountability.
CLAT/Exam Relevance Summary
Hate speech regulation directly relates to Article 19, reasonable restrictions, and case law like Shreya Singhal.
Karnataka’s Bill fills a major legislative gap, important for Governance, Polity, and Ethics.
Judicial impeachment links to Articles 124(4), 218, separation of powers, and accountability mechanisms.
In-house inquiry procedures highlight how the judiciary addresses misconduct without political interference.
Both issues are crucial for UPSC GS-2, CLAT Legal Reasoning, and Judiciary Exams focusing on constitutional safeguards and institutional checks.