Hate Speech and Blasphemy

Question 1

According to the (?) , Hate Speech is stated as an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like.

Answer 1

267th Report of the Law Commission of India

Question 2

____ of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), punishes any speech, writings, or signs that “with premeditated and malicious intent” insult citizens’ religion or religious beliefs with a fine and imprisonment for up to three years.

Answer 2

Section 295(A)

Question 3

The legality of Section 295(A) was affirmed by

Answer 3

Ramji Lal Modi case (1957)

by a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court

Question 4

It stated that the link between the speech spoken and any public disorder caused as a result of it should have a close relationship for retrieving Section 295(A) of IPC. Name the case

Answer 4

Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs Ram Manohar Lohia case (1960)

Question 5

Punishes acts that cause enmity and hatred between two groups.

Answer 5

Sections 153A and 153B of the IPC

Question 6

Deals with punishing acts which deliberately or with malicious intention outrage the religious feelings of a class of persons.

Answer 6

Section 295A of the IPC

Question 7

Make the publication and circulation of content which may cause ill-will or hatred between different groups an offence.

Answer 7

Sections 505(1) and 505(2)

Question 8

It proposed inserting Sections 153 C (b) and Section 505 A in the IPC for incitement to commit an offence on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe. Name the Committee

Answer 8

Viswanathan Committee 2019

Question 9

It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years and fine or both and Section 509 A IPC (word, gesture or act intended to insult member of a particular race), punishable by three years or fine or both. Name the Committee

Answer 9

Bezbaruah Committee 2014

Question 10

HATE SPEECH

Issues were raised about Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relating to the fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, where the Court differentiated between discussion, advocacy, and incitement and held that the first two were the essence of Article 19(1). Name the case

Answer 10

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Question 11

HATE SPEECH

The Court held that a mere act cannot be punished unless an individual resorted to violence or inciting any other person to violence. Name the case

Answer 11

Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam

Question 12

HATE SPEECH

In this case, the Court held that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless the situation so created is dangerous to the community/ public interest wherein this danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. There should be a proximate and direct nexus with the expression so used. Name the case

Answer 12

S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram