By Mohamed Atherulla Shariff
Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot reserved the hate speech Bill for the President’s consideration, citing a ‘possibility of misuse for political malice or to avenge hatred against any person, group or community’. The Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill 2025 was passed by the legislature last December.
The Karnataka government’s attempt to enact a law to curb hate speech has met resistance from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which questioned the need for a separate state law when the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) contains provisions against the crime.
In February, Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot withheld his assent for the Bill, citing representations received against it, and reserved it for the President’s consideration. A communication from Lok Bhavan to the President said the definition of hate speech was vague in the Bill and that there was a “possibility of misuse of the provisions of this Act for political malice or to avenge hatred against any person, group or community”.
An office memorandum from the MHA’s Centre-State Division stated that the provisions of the hate speech Bill were “already substantially covered under the existing provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and other prevailing laws”. The memo, issued on May 12, further stated that a separate state law “may result in duplication and lack of uniformity”.
This memo was forwarded to Karnataka’s home department and the Department of Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation on May 20. It also sought further comments and clarifications regarding the Bill from the home department.
However, the Legislative Competence of the State is advocated by the legal experts as under:
Under Article 246 of the Constitution, criminal law is placed in the Concurrent List (Entry 1, List III). This means that both Parliament and State Legislatures can enact laws on criminal matters.
Therefore, Karnataka is not barred merely because the BNS already contains provisions on hate speech. The State Legislature possesses constitutional competence to legislate on criminal law, public order, and related matters.
The Real Constitutional Issue: Repugnancy
The stronger legal question is not competence but repugnancy under Article 254. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the proposed Bill’s provisions are already substantially covered by the BNS and other existing laws, raising concerns of duplication and lack of uniformity.
If a State law occupies the same field as a Central law, creates inconsistent definitions, prescribes different punishments or makes compliance with both laws impossible, then it may be held repugnant to the Central legislation. However, Article 254(2) provides a constitutional solution: if a State law on a Concurrent List subject is reserved for and receives Presidential assent, it can prevail within that State notwithstanding inconsistency with the Central law. This explains why the Governor reserved the Bill for the President’s consideration.
Governor’s Concerns
The Governor reportedly raised two major objections: The definition of hate speech was allegedly vague. The law could potentially be misused for political purposes or against particular groups. From a constitutional perspective, these concerns relate to: Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), the requirement that restrictions must fall within Article 19(2) and the doctrine against vague criminal statutes.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that criminal law affecting speech must be drafted with sufficient precision so that citizens know what conduct is prohibited.
Is Duplication alone a ground to invalidate the Law? Not necessarily. Indian states already have several criminal statutes that supplement central laws. Courts generally examine: whether the State law serves a distinct purpose, whether it addresses a specific local problem and whether there is direct inconsistency with Parliamentary legislation. Therefore, the mere existence of BNS provisions does not automatically make the Karnataka law unconstitutional.
Possible Judicial Outcome
If challenged before the courts, the following questions would likely arise. Is the definition of hate speech sufficiently precise? Does the Bill create offences already fully covered by the BNS? Are the punishments inconsistent with Parliamentary law? Has Presidential assent been obtained under Article 254(2)? Does the law impose disproportionate restrictions on free speech?
Legally, Karnataka has the constitutional authority to enact a hate speech law because criminal law falls within the Concurrent List. The stronger challenge is not legislative competence but whether the Bill conflicts with the BNS and whether its provisions are sufficiently clear and constitutionally compatible with free speech protections. If the Bill receives Presidential assent under Article 254(2), it would enjoy a much stronger constitutional footing even in the presence of overlapping Central legislation.
